I’m baaaaaaack!

Wow, it’s been a long time. Since I was last active here, my life has changed drastically. I have three little dudes now under age 7, I am a single mom, and my life feels like it’s been turned upside down. That’s a post for another time though. 

I’ll just say it now, I feel like a bit of a fraud resurrecting a theology blog when I’ve barely been in church the last few years. I decided anything that gets me back into Scripture and learning about God is probably good, though, so here I am. My ideas about how I feel most connected to God have also changed, somewhat drastically, which we can explore at some point down the road when I have it a little more sorted out myself. 

I probably won’t be any more faithful at blogging than I was before, but I intend to go through and clean this up a bit, then relaunch it with all the fire you’d expect from a heresy blog. My mom said it was too cerebral before so I’m going to attempt to make it a little more user-friendly this go-around. We shall see if I succeed or not. 

Peace be with you, friends. 

Sarah's 12th Commandment: Two Kingdoms Theology and American Politics

Facebook is a good place to throw bombs or post rants (and cute baby pictures!!), but is a poor format for serious discussion.  What started out as a mini political rant turned into a saying, then a meme, then full-blown misunderstood comments.  Therefore, I felt it necessary to take it outside... or to this blog.  You know what I mean.

Frankly, I don't know whether this belongs on my theology blog or my political blog.  I try to keep the two as distinct as the Two Kingdoms, but then folks have to go make it all messy.  Since the root issue is theology, I think this is perhaps the most appropriate place.  There is a brief, much more political, post with a link to this on my political blog, though.

Here's the comment I made that started it all (after days of annoyance at the incredible amount of dispensational premillennialist heresy thrown about on my newsfeed regarding the current political situation in Israel/Gaza--read my two posts on eschatological heresies for a definition of dispensational premillennialism, and/or read this excellent article on it by my Pastor).  I'll probably comment more on the political aspect of this on my other blog, but suffice it to say, the past week has just caused rampant heresy to appear on my feed.  To be fair, I think many don't know differently because this is what and how they were taught.  But I digress.  Back to the initial offending comment:

Please stop using religion to make arguments for or against a government policy. That isn't at all to say religion doesn't or shouldn't shape your views, but rather, to say that you can find a better way to make political arguments than simply referring to whatever your religion is. There are ways to make that exact same argument without invoking your religion... and if you can't do that without making a religious plea... maybe you should rethink your position.

This got condensed by a friend to:

Sarah's 12th Commandment: "There should be ways to make an argument for your [political] position without invoking religion. If you can't, then rethink your position."

My friend is much pithier than I (probably why he's the candidate-type and I'm the advisor-type...).  Briefly on background for those not familiar with why this would be number 12: in Republican circles, there is an oft-cited quote from Reagan (his "11th Commandment") about not going after fellow Republicans with vicious public attacks.

Then a Pastor friend of mine turned it into this masterpiece:

The initial post was meant as a political comment, but the discussion on both the initial thread and one where I posted the picture became much more theological in nature.

To avoid repeating myself, now might be a good time to go read up on Two Kingdoms Theology (or Two Kingdoms Doctrine), because that is the focal point of the theological discussion.

Immediate comments ranged from (I'm paraphrasing) "Your faith has to be part of all of your life or it isn't very strong," to "BUT... JESUS!" (although, to be fair, that last one was a sarcastic comment--however, it summarized some of the other discussion pretty well).

Let me try to break down what I am and am not saying for clarification.

I am saying that...

• Theocracies are bad, and anything that moves towards that, in full or part, is equally bad (and, frankly, unbiblical).
• An improper understanding of the Two Kingdoms (which is rampant in modern Christendom) far too often leads down the road to theocracy.
• Frankly, the idea of a Christian theocracy is no better than, for example, an Islamic state.  In point of fact, both are heresies (Islam being a very devolved Arian heresy meshed with some other stuff of non-Christian origin, and theocracies being, at best, a poor reading of Scripture, and at worst, one of the biggest blights on Christendom that I can think of), so while the ends differ, it's a similar root problem.
• God gave us wisdom, reason, and knowledge.  We should use it.  It is not persuasive to say to a non-Christian, "But Jesus says so!"  It is, however, persuasive to use common sense and natural law to make the same point.
• My comment was directed towards more than just Christianity, but all religions, including secular religions like humanism, socialism, progressivism, etc.  Even Atheists (whose belief in no God is a religion in itself) are included.
• Government involvement in any religion in any way is B.A.D!  Once it's codified in law, it can be altered to suit the state--and government rarely makes things better when it changes them.  Separation of church and state isn't to protect the state from Christians or religious influence, but to rather protect Christians from interference by the state.
• You can and should have a religious argument for policy if it makes sense.  What I am asking is for that to not be your only argument, nor your default argument.
• Force makes for very poor faith.  Using government as a bludgeon to make people "believe" anything just creates liars, which is far more dangerous to someone's eternal salvation than a corrupt government in my opinion.
• Government is meant as a curb on sin (Law).  It is about enforcing the law and judgment.  It cannot have the Gospel (grace).  Bluntly put, there is "no room for Jesus in government" because government isn't about the Gospel.  That doesn't mean Christians don't belong in politics, that faith doesn't inform someone's opinion, etc., but rather that (again) a theocracy is BAD.
• Faith does (and should) inform all aspects of a Christian's life.  However, apparently, if every word coming out of your mouth isn't from Scripture or isn't evangelizing, I guess your faith is weak, right?
• (Warning--you are about to read what is likely a very unpopular statement, but it's true):
  The Jewish people should not be considered by the Church as any different than any other non-believers.  This is not to say they should be abused, mistreated, etc.  And, before you say it, yes--Luther was wrong in his statements about the Jews, for the record.  They should be shown the same type of compassion and love we would show any of our neighbors of any religion, but to base political policy on the false notion that they're more special to Christians than anyone else is crazy.  The New Covenant in Jesus nullifies the old.  Period.  For more on this, explained much better than I could, I highly recommend this article by my Pastor (also linked about regarding dispensational premillennialism).  Further, dispensational premillennialism doesn't value the Jews at all (despite the rhetoric)!  Read here to learn more (please note that the timeline of the rapture and end times according to dispensational premillennialism isn't accurately represented here, but the end result is).  Don't believe me?  Dispensational premillennialists openly say so themselves
  (also here).

I am not saying that...

• Christians shouldn't be involved in the public arena.  Quite the contrary.
• Your faith shouldn't inform your positions or votes.  That's a willful misreading of what I've said.  I am merely saying that, when discussing opinions, policy, candidates, etc. in the public square, it's not good enough to say, "The Bible tells me so."  Sunday School songs make for poor policy discussion.
• You shouldn't ever mention your faith at all in politics.  This is more about knowing your audience than anything else.  Specific statements to religious groups are ripe for a religious argument.  But, again, that shouldn't be your only argument!
• American had no Judeo-Christian influences in its founding.  That would be historically ignorant at absolute best.  I am saying that the Founders put in protections so that a theocracy wouldn't be possible.  Of course, they didn't seem to imagine the possibility of a secular, state religion that now seems to be the "theocracy" in which we live, but that's due to their lack of evil imagination (clearly).  We do, however, have a Constitution that guides our government.  I guess the last time I checked, the Bible wasn't an appendix, article, or amendment to that document.

To briefly summarize:

God gave all humans the ability to think critically, use logic, knowledge, and natural law, to explain everything within theology that actually has an effect on Government.  In order to actually implement both politically and morally sound policy, it is vital that we discuss policy from a moral, rather than theological, standpoint.  The only difference is not invoking the name of Jesus or "the Bible says so!" trope in political discourse.  And if it is impossible to make your argument without bringing up religion, you may wish to consider whether or not it is the proper role of government.

Finally, since without a single word in there, this meme makes less sense without context.  Here's a slightly edited version that if you like, you should share!

Adult Confirmation: Ten Commandments--Second Table (part one)

Click on the links to see notes from Week 1 and Week 2.

This week, we dug into the meat of the 4th and 5th commandments ("Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother," and "Thou shalt not murder," respectively).  We were supposed to cover the rest of the commandments... but you know how that goes.

Here are my notes from tonight's class.

Review

• 1st Commandment--God gives us Himself, and takes everything else away (deals with our heart)
• 2nd Commandment--God gives us his name and gives us a life of prayer (deals with our lips)
• 3rd Commandment--God gives us the gift of worship and His Word (deals with our ears)
• The Commandments are not only restrictive ("do not do this bad thing"), but also positive ("do this good thing")
• What does it mean to live a Christian life?  Listening.  Our "action" is passive, not active.

Before we got into the rest of the class, my husband asked a good question about why we say "fear and love" in the response to each Commandment in our Small Catechism.

• Fear and Love are contradictory ideas
• Some say that fear is "holy awe and respect"--but the Bible doesn't say that (those words could have been used, but weren't)
• Fear leaves you completely at the the mercy of God
• God commands us to fear Him only--once we believe, the threat of damnation (fear) is removed, and only love remains
• Fear gives way to love; Law gives way to Gospel
• We have a continual battle between Fear and Love (Law and Gospel), which is why we say both

We then talked about Luther's "tower experience" (when he first understood the Gospel)

• Romans 1:16--Luther was hung up on the phrase "righteousness of God"
• He believed that the Law = 10 Commandments, and the Gospel = more commands
• That makes this "active righteousness", or our works used to fulfil the Law and the "Gospel commands"
• Luther felt this was oppressive and wondered why God would do this--it's like asking us to complete an impossible task
• Luther realized, unlike any other theologian, that we don't need to try and make God's Word more palatable; we don't need to add or subtract anything--we just need to believe (and not always understand)
• The Scriptures tell us all we need to know, not all we want to know
• He realized that righteousness was passive (through faith and trust) rather than active (through works)

Second Table

• The Fourth Commandment (establishing authority) is the font of societal order and the foundation of all other commandments following.
• Estates: the ordering of society
• 1st: Family - parents --> children
• Foremost estate of human society--the primary building block
• 2nd: Church - preacher --> preachee (hearer)
• Also deals with the 3rd commandment
• Canonical governance, means of disseminating Law and Gospel
• 3rd: State - ruler --> ruled
• Civil governance (derived from family)
• Unlike the other two estates, the structure of the state is complex, although overly simplified, it becomes ruler and ruled
• Unique caveat with constitutional representative government (like America)
• Family does not serve the state, the state serves the family (since the estate of the family is the building block of the state)
• It is VERY important not to confuse these estates (i.e. in a theocracy unless it is established by God--the ONLY one ever established was in Old Testament Israel)
• Vocation: calling and station in life
• Who is my neighbor?
• Who our neighbor is determines how we specifically act towards those involved with our vocations.
• Authority vs. Power = function of vocation vs. essential
• Authority is to give gifts
• Satan attacks the institutions of the family and attempts to pervert the balance of family supremacy over the state
• See my previous post on the Left Hand and Right Hand Kingdoms here (we reviewed it in class tonight)
• When dealing with the 5th Commandment (which protects life), understand that there is a distinction between killing and murder (i.e. self defense, war, capital punishment)
• How do you distinguish between the two?  Ask: "Am I angry?"
• The Just War Theory was developed to help determine when it was justified for Christians to be involved in war
• Violence is sometimes necessary to use against death to bring death to an end.

Next week, we will finish up the 10 Commandments and hopefully start the Apostles' Creed.  The political animal in me is looking forward to more thorough discussion of the 7th Commandment, which Pastor calls the "anti-socialism" Commandment.  I already enjoy the discussions we've had about the 4th Commandment and authority.  A little teaser for next week:

Theological Pet Peeves

Note: I originally wrote this two weeks ago (18 November, to be specific), and just haven't gotten back around to editing and post it between Thanksgiving, illness and travelling.  Finally getting there! -S

A few weeks ago was especially unnerving for me, hitting on many of the "theological pet peeves" I have, so I thought I might put together a brief commentary on each of them.  They're not in any particular order (other than how I thought of them).

1) "Accepting" vs. "Receiving" faith
While I generally understand what Christians mean when they ask, "When did you accept Jesus?", my mind immediately reacts with "SEMI-PELAGIANIST!!!"  I know it may seem like semantics, but in all the research I have been doing of late on Original Sin, I know that no one would ever "choose" faith.  We cannot choose spiritual good.  I've spent years trying to figure out how to explain this in a concise manner, and it finally dawned on me this week.  I've always said that our role in the creation of faith is passive, not active.  But finally, the right word to use instead of accept dawned on me.  It is receive.  We receive faith.  We may reject it (which is what everyone would do, were it not for the working of the Holy Ghost), but our receipt of  faith is entirely passive.  Putting the emphasis on our acceptance (or supposedly active) role in salvation is nothing short of Semi-Pelegianism, even if it isn't meant that way.  We have to be very precise in what we say, not be lazy or sloppy in theology.

2) Saying "just" in prayers
I don't know if there is necessarily anything theologically wrong with this, but I can't stand when people use the world "just" in prayers.  It's a filler, it's annoying and it just makes me want to scream.  Another thing that drives me nuts is when people mutter things under their breath in prayer.  Again, not sure there is really anything wrong with it, but I can't concentrate when I am listening to others when I'm supposed to be praying.  Interestingly, I don't think I've ever heard a Lutheran do either of those things.  I wonder why that is?

3) Dual Covenant vs. New Covenant Theology
With all that has gone on in Israel the past weeks, I keep seeing posts on Facebook about how America has to save Israel and (yes, some people have actually said this) how America was created to save Israel, even though Israel wasn't a nation until 150+ years after we were founded as a country.  This comes from a largely Dispensational idea that Israel must be restored before the return of Christ (something I've never found in the Bible).  What the Bible does make clear is the New Covenant, which is not just for Israel but for all in Jesus.  America may have strategic or other reasons to help or "save" Israel, but using Dispensational Theology with no Biblical basis to make political decisions terrifies me.

4) End Times Signs-seekers
Jesus told us that even He does know know when He is to return.  One of the frustrations that also comes from Dispensationalism is that there are those who continue to look for signs, even though we cannot know the hour or day when Jesus is to return.  From solar flares to the UN (which is, by the by, a misunderstanding of the Antichrist, who is a religious, NOT political, figure) to waiting for an invented Rapture, I seem to see something new at least weekly.  There are even those who claim that 21 December 2012, the day the Mayan Calendar supposedly predicts the end of the world, is also the day the Rapture will happen.  These attempts to read signs that aren't there just makes the rest of us Christians look silly and loony.  It's hard for anyone to take Christianity seriously when what is known about it is just plain goofy, and not actual Christian, Biblical doctrine.

5) "Baptism is just a symbol, but you must be fully immersed and not an infant for it to be valid."

If something is only "symbolic", why do you care how it is done?  What does it matter?  Sigh.

6) "You cross yourself?  Oh, you must be a Catholic."
Um... no.  I know many non-Catholics who cross themselves: Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc.  I wish this was something more Christians did, but no, that doesn't make me Catholic.

7) "Lutherans are intellectual Christians."
For some reason, people seem to think this is an insult.  It isn't.  What's sad is that more Christians aren't "intellectual".  What I mean by that is that they know and understand the Bible, Theology, church history, other Denominations, early Church Fathers, etc.  So few seem to dig into the meat of Christianity, and it is sad.  Our faith is not just one of belief, but also of reason.  It is very logical, but you have to understand and study. That is the greatest disservice done by American Churches today--they seem to be nothing more than fluff and entertainment, and seriously lack substance.  Yes, that is a generalization.  But I hear so often we should ignore our differences for unity.  No.  We cannot have unity without understanding our differences, and why those differences exist.  Then we can have discussions about differences and perhaps come to a place of unity.  Ignoring them only makes the divisions worse.

8) Not capitalizing appropriate references to God
I've been typing up charts from a book written by a protestant theological professor which are largely helpful, but he seems incapable of capitalizing "He" in reference to God, or "The Word" in reference to the Bible, or many other similar examples.  It has reminded me how much that drives me nuts.  You don't have to capitalize everything, but when you're specifically referring to God or His Word, it is the right thing to do.

9) "Why do you have to be so arrogant?"
I get that a lot, and it is a fair criticism to some extent.  I tend to be a very snarky person by nature.  I'm very good at speaking the truth, I'm not so good at always doing it in love.  Rather than arrogance (which I can understand how it looks that way), though, I would submit it is confidence--confidence in my faith to the point that I would die for it.  I made that vow in my confirmation, and I take it very seriously.  I have a hard time even wanting to evangelize, because I see a broken church--and why on earth would I want to bring more people into something broken?  So I spend more (most) of my time attempting to correct the serious errors I see in Christendom today.  One thing I desperately miss about the early church is the condemnation of heresy.  The Roman Catholic Church still does this to some degree, but we need more of it.  There is so much heresy in the church today, and few seem to even realize it.  And so in my frustration and sadness over this, I tend to resort to snark.  For that I apologize.  I hope you will all understand it comes from a place of confidence in my faith and wanting to not see heresy in the church.

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." -- Martin Luther

"Sharing" Jesus and Our Faith (or... Flabby Theological Language)

After seeing an excellent quote from Pr. Donavon Reily on Facebook (like I see at least a few times a week), I share it.  And such a fascinating discussion ensued, I thought it would be worth documenting here as well.  I offer it to you without my commentary, but would be interested in your thoughts or comments on "sharing" vs. "fellowship" or "communion".

The initial quote (from Pr. Reily) says:

‎"Christians are not called and sent to share Jesus or worse, share their faith... We are to preach Christ, and Him crucified, for the forgiveness of sins. The world doesn't need us to share Jesus with them, they need to hear of God's free choosing of them through Jesus' dying and rising "for you." They don't need a toe, or a spleen, or a wisp of hair. They need Jesus: all of Him, or nothing at all."

To which he added:

"As a brother-pastor noted, because we have transliterated the word "koinonia" into "share," we now have "sharing" instead of "fellowship," or, "communion." In other words, we've allowing flabby language into our high-speed, highly-tuned theology."

And, of course, that is from where I got the title for this post. Then a friend of Pr. Reily, Larry Griffin, added:

"English Standard Version (©2001) 'and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.'"

Here is where it gets fun. from Pr. Riley:

"Larry Griffin, you can cite a poor (Reformed) translation, but that doesn't resolve the matter. It's properly translated as ‘close association, fellowship.’ That is, for example, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ’ ἡμῶν ‘in order that you may have fellowship with us’ 1 Jn 1:3; δἰ οὗ ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘through whom you were called to have fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ’ 1 Cor 1:9."

Pr. David Juhl:

"The so-called "Koinonia Project" is not about "sharing" each other's faith. It is about restoring communion with one another. The German word is "Gemeinschaft", often translated "fellowship", but that doesn't catch what the Greek is saying. κοινωνία is oneness in the faith, a oneness that is not shared but believed. Therefore, we work together toward κοινωνία, oneness, intimacy of doctrine, not sharing."

Larry Griffin:

"I'm just not ready to say that the word "share" can never be used in a proper way. I am not a big fan of the word, but I have used it as an opposite of "keeping to myself" the truths that set us free."

Pr. Reily:

"You can use "share" as you so choose, but the Greek and the German don't support you. You're adding your own spin to the word. And that's what I (we) are getting at. It's not about what you want it to mean, but what the sources define it as ... as my brother also notes, "The word for "to share" as in to give another a portion of something is συγκοινωνέω." "

Pr. Juhl:

"Back to German for a bit. κοινωνία is not tranlated "Anteil". Anteil is "share" or "portion". The German word is "Gemeinschaft". Gemeinschaft is "community" or better "communion". Anteil denotes a part of something. Gemeinschaft is the fullness of something. Frankly, Brother Griffin, I would rather have the fullness, the Gemeinschaft, rather than the Anteil, the portion. I will grant you that "share" is a good word than can be used in a good way. I submit that "share" is not the best word to be used for κοινωνία. Let us not Anteil the κοινωνία, but Gemeinschaft!"

Pr. Brandt Hoffman:

"κοινωνία isn't some silly "mission project" or some popular buzz word. It is an actual reflection of the faith God has given us in His Word and Sacraments. There is a unity which is created by God's Holy Spirit. Consider Acts 4:32 and the use of koivwvia...
Τοῦ δὲ πλήθους τῶν πιστευσάντων ἦν καρδία καὶ ψυχὴ μία, καὶ οὐδὲ εἷς τι τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῷ ἔλεγεν ἴδιον εἶναι ἀλλʼ ἦν αὐτοῖς ἅπαντα κοινά. 

That isn't a mission project, or some sort of bogus "sharing" language. That is the full and complete giving of EVERYTHING of Christ Himself. His very proclamation IS "fellowship" / "Life Together". The life we have together IS CHRIST."

Pr. Reily

"Jacob Ehrhard writes: Koinonia is a noun, "a share of" something common.

If you run the verb form koinoneo, you get these uses in the NT (the thing which is shared is in parentheses):
Gal 6:6 (all good things, money, offerings)
Rom 12:13 (the needs of the saints)
Rom 15:27 (to have a share in the spirit with the Gentiles who have come to faith)
1 Tim 5:22 (sin)
2 John 11 (wicked works)
Heb 2:14 (flesh and blood of Jesus!)
1 Pet 4:13 (Christ's sufferings!)
And the best is Phil 4:15 (to have a share in the giving and receiving of St. Paul).

In most of these cases, the respective form of koinoneo has the understanding of "to have a share in" in a passive sense, rather than an active sharing of something that you have.

Also, in nearly every case, the sharing takes place with those who are already believers, that is, the "koino" stuff takes place between Christians and not from believers to unbelievers. In the cases where something is shared with an unbeliever, it's sin and wickedness."

Pr. Hoffman:

"Bringing down the requirements for Olympics runners so that guys like me can run in the Olympics only ruins the Olympics. The same is true for allowing flabby language into our high-speed, highly-tuned theology."

Infant Faith and Paedobaptism

After my miscarriage earlier this year, I spent a lot of time thinking about infant faith.  I took great comfort in the fact that while I was pregnant for those few short weeks, I was able to attend our district synodical convention and hear the Word preached several times there, along with attending church when the campaign schedule allowed.  As a Lutheran, or maybe more broadly, as someone who believes sincerely in infant faith and infant baptism, that gave me the hope that my child did hear the Word, which is all that is needed for faith.  God is good and faithful, and I will trust in His mercies with my child that I will never get to meet here on earth.

While Lutherans (and other subscribers to paedobaptism--another name for infant baptism) believe that we are conceived with Original Sin present from that very first moment that sparks life, we also believe that because faith comes through hearing, that faith, too, can follow at a very early age--perhaps even before birth.  Who are we to say what God may or may not be able to accomplish?  There is no "age of accountability  (for that denies Original Sin being from conception), nor is there a need for a believer's baptism.

Now that I'm expecting again (14 weeks now!), it has been on my mind once more.  At least in our Lutheran synod (LC-MS), the Pastor blesses the children who are not receiving communion with a remembrance of their baptism.  I was so moved yesterday while we celebrated the Lord's Supper.  Perhaps I've just never noticed this, or perhaps it is something that not all Pastors do, but my Pastor also blessed my unborn child, asking for God to guard it and bring it safely to His promises in baptism.  What an incredible statement of our beliefs and our faith that even the littlest among us may also be worked upon by the Holy Ghost to be brought to faith!

I was two weeks old when I was baptized, and I do not remember a single day when I didn't have faith.  For me, it was never a question of when I had faith, but perhaps when didn't I?  I certainly can't remember.

When I was younger (maybe 7-8 years ago), I started writing a paper on why infant baptism is Biblically sound doctrine.  I've since updated it several times, and it only seems to get longer every time I look at it.  However, since 50-ish pages in a word document do not translate well into a blog post (particularly when there are lengthy appendices), I'm simply going to share some of the highlights here (mostly related Bible Verses and Early Church Father quotes).  If you'd like to see the whole thing, feel free to comment or shoot me an email and I'll send it your way.

The issue of baptism, or more specifically, infant baptism, often boils down to three simple questions.  First, what is the purpose of baptism?  Second, can an infant, who cannot make a “choice”, have faith?  Third, can a “choice” to believe bring salvation to you, and if so, what is the role of the Godhead in this “choice”? (note: those are the basis for the rest of the paper)

• Genesis 7:1-9:17; Exodus 14:13-31; Numbers 20:1-13; Joshua 3-4; 2 Kings 5:1-19; Ezekiel 36:22-29; Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:4-9; Luke 3:3-18 and 1 Corinthians 10:2, 11—the promises of water connected with the house of Israel (including John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Israel’s redeemer) are used to save and destroy, a dichotomy shown distinctly in baptism through the drowning of the Old Adam and birth of regeneration baptism gives; also showing the promise to all people of God.
• Psalm 51:2; Isaiah 1:16; Isaiah 4:4; Isaiah 12:2-3; Ezekiel 36:22-29 and Zechariah 13:1—the Old Testament points to salvation through baptism.
• Isaiah 32:15-17; Isaiah 44:3-5; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Ezekiel 39:29; Joel 2:28-32; Zechariah 12:10; Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; Luke 11:13; Luke 24:49; John 1:33; John 4:10-14; John 7:37-39; John 14:16-17; John 15:26-27; John 16:7-14; Acts 1:4-5, 8; Acts 2:1-21, 32-39; Acts 10:43-48; Acts 11:15-18; Acts 15:7-9; Romans 8:11-13; Romans 14:17 and Ephesians 3:16—the promise of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament; the promise of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament is fulfilled through the rest of the Testament and through our baptism into Christ.
• 1 Peter 3:20-21—baptism actually redeems not through the power of the individual but of the resurrected Christ.
• John 3:5-8 and Galatians 3:27-28—the effects of being in the flesh could only be countered by water and Spirit, by a baptism that brings with it the power of the Spirit.
• Romans 6 and Hebrews 2:14-15—one participates in Christ's death through baptism.
• Job 14:1; Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3; Ecclesiastes 7:20; John 3:5-6; Romans 3:20, 23; Romans 5:12, 18; Romans 8:6-8; Ephesians 2:1 and 1 John 1:10—speak of original sin and the necessity of baptism for ALL.
• 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:50 and Romans 8:6-8—we cannot, of our own will, submit to God.  The Holy Spirit, through the Word, causes faith in us.
• Luke 3:3, 6—baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, for salvation.
• John 15:16; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11 and Ephesians 2:9-10—we are predestined to faith, that is, it is not the work of man but of God by which we are atoned.
• Romans 10:14-15, 17—faith comes from what is heard - faith is a miraculous result of the Word of God.
• Romans 9:16 and Philippians 2:12-13—salvation cannot come by the hands of any man, but through the work of God in you.
• John 4:14; Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 10:9-12, 14 and James 2:14-19—faith is the only way to salvation.
• Matthew 14:22-33—we come to Christ on (in) the water.
• Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26-27; 2 Peter 2:20-22; Matthew 13:5-7, 18, 20-22 and Luke 8:13—we can fall away from our faith, once saved is not always saved.
• Colossians 2:11-13—baptism is the new circumcision.
• Exodus 4:24-26—the importance of circumcision and of obedience to God’s commands.
• Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:37-39; Acts 11:14, Acts 16:14-15, 30-31, 33; Acts 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16-17 and Colossians 2:11-12—who is to be baptized - whole households, which includes infants, were baptized.
• Joshua 8:35—infants have always been included in the Biblical understanding of family and nations.
• Psalm 8:2; Psalm 22:9-10; Psalm 71:5-6; Isaiah 49:1; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 18:1-6; Matthew 21:15-16; Luke 1:15, 41, 44; Luke 18:15-17—infants can (and do) have faith.
• 2 Timothy 3: 14-16—Timothy had faith from infancy.
• Matthew 18:1-6; Mark 10:14; Luke 10:21; Luke 18:15-17; Acts 11:14; Acts 16:15, 33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16—the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to children.
• Mark 16:16; Acts 2:37-39; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-10; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:25-28; Ephesians 5:26; Colossians 2:11-14; 1 Peter 3:20-21 and Titus 3:5—the blessings of baptism.

Adapted below from two article (found here and here) are just a few examples from early church fathers (many more exist), showing how infant baptism has been practiced since the inception of Christianity.

• Polycarp (69-155), at his martyrdom, said, “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ.”
• Justin Martyr (100 - 166) stated that, “Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years.”
• Irenaeus (130 - 200) wrote in his Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.”
• All 66 bishops at the Council of Carthage in 254 stated that, “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God... especially infants... those newly born.”
• Origen (185 - 254), in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9, said that “For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit.”  He continues: “The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit.”  Origen also stated in his Homily on Luke 14, that “Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.”
• Cyprian (215 - 258) writes, “In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man... Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision... we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.”
• The Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: “If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized... let him be anathema.”
• Augustine (354 - 430), declared in De Genesi Ad Literam, X: 39, that, “If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.” And again, “Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ.”  In Enchiridion, Augustine declares, “For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin.”

As we can see, just from this, infant baptism is not only the Biblically accurate doctrine on baptism, but it has been in practice since the beginning of Christianity (I would especially point out Polycarp, one of the Apostle John’s disciples—look how long he lived (86 years) and how long he had been a faithful servant of the Lord Christ (86 years)—coincidence?  I think not…).  Believer’s baptism, relatively speaking, is a new idea that was developed during the reformation by protestants.  There is simply no Biblical or historical precedent to show that it was practiced in any way prior to then.  Now, obviously, adults were baptized, but those are instances of conversion, which is an entirely separate matter.  We notice that when God says confess with your mouth and be baptized, that there is not a priority in it, no need for one always to come before the other (particularly if you understand Greek).  As long as you confess and believe, you are justified, sanctified and atoned for.  Why would you deny baptism to the believers when God commands that all His children be baptized?

There was only ONE major opponent to infant baptism can be found before the 1520s.  From the second article linked above: 

“In the 1,500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant Baptism was Tertullian (160 - 215), bishop of Carthage, Africa. His superficial objection was to the unfair responsibility laid on godparents when the children of pagans joined the church. However, his real opposition was more fundamental. It was his view that sinfulness begins at the "puberty, of the soul," that is "about the fourteenth year of life" and "it drives man out of the paradise of innocence" (De Anima 38:2). This rules out the belief in original sin.  Tertullian’s stance, together with other unorthodox views, led him to embrace Montanism in 207. Montanism denied the total corruption and sinfulness of human nature. With its emphasis upon the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, it was the precursor to the modern Charismatic Movement.”

The Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord) address Baptism (in general) and Infant Baptism (in specific) numerous times.

• Augsburg Confession: Article IX: Of Baptism.
• Apology to the Augsburg Confession: Article IX: Of Baptism.
• Smalcald Articles: V. Of Baptism.
• Small Catechism: The Sacrament of Holy Baptism.
• Large Catechism: Holy Baptism. and Of Infant Baptism.
• Visitation Articles: Concerning Holy Baptism.