Why the difference? In Greek lexicons it describes infants.

[earl40]

In a discussion with a Lutheran on how babies have faith. He likes the NIV because it uses infants.

KJV

2 Timothy 3:15

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to

NIV

2 Timothy 3:15

15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[CharlieJ]

The Greek word βρεφος, used there, is of course flexible like all words, but usually refers to very young children. It's normal range is from fetus to newborn babe, through toddler, running up perhaps to the end of nursing. I would say the vast majority of cases of this word, unless it's being used in some sort of metaphorical sense, refer to a child under 3 years, at most under 5.

 

[earl40]

The Greek word βρεφος, used there, is of course flexible like all words, but usually refers to very young children. It's normal range is from fetus to newborn babe, through toddler, running up perhaps to the end of nursing. I would say the vast majority of cases of this word, unless it's being used in some sort of metaphorical sense, refer to a child under 3 years, at most under 5.

So we are to assume a child of 3-6 have a cognizant recognition that scripture is of God? Been a while since my children were that young but I think any child that age range would not have such.

 

[CharlieJ]

Actually I think he means an infant, a new-born babe. He's saying that Timothy was born into a family that taught him the word.

 

[earl40]

Actually I think he means an infant, a new-born babe. He's saying that Timothy was born into a family that taught him the word.

I agree, though the Lutheran will insist this infant has saving faith as evidenced by this verse.

 

[DMcFadden]

Actually I think he means an infant, a new-born babe. He's saying that Timothy was born into a family that taught him the word.

I agree, though the Lutheran will insist this infant has saving faith as evidenced by this verse.

Not necessarily. It is possible to hold any major view on baptism and believe that Paul is stating that Timothy was born into a family where the Word was taught. Exegesis ought to be exegesis, regardless of dogmatic convictions.

 

[earl40]

Actually I think he means an infant, a new-born babe. He's saying that Timothy was born into a family that taught him the word.

I agree, though the Lutheran will insist this infant has saving faith as evidenced by this verse.

Not necessarily. It is possible to hold any major view on baptism and believe that Paul is stating that Timothy was born into a family where the Word was taught. Exegesis ought to be exegesis, regardless of dogmatic convictions.

I agree they ought to do such but their dogma insists that babies can and do have biblical faith. He insists we reformed have other ways of salvation beside faith alone and I am trying to state clearly that we do not because we believe in the L in TULIP. In other words, we believe elect babies who cannot yet believe are save by "the cross". I am not sure he likes that I keep lobbing out "the cross" at a Lutheran.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Did not John the Baptist have saving faith while yet in the womb? Luke 1:41-44:

"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."​

And cannot many other instances of this be cited?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Actually I think he means an infant, a new-born babe. He's saying that Timothy was born into a family that taught him the word.

I agree, though the Lutheran will insist this infant has saving faith as evidenced by this verse.

Not necessarily. It is possible to hold any major view on baptism and believe that Paul is stating that Timothy was born into a family where the Word was taught. Exegesis ought to be exegesis, regardless of dogmatic convictions.

I agree with this but it does go to the way one speaks about young children. I don't think it can be really used to demonstrate either infant faith or baptismal regeneration from the pericope but it does demonstrate a continuum like that of a seed or sapling to a tree.

For instance, the well known testimony of Polycarp where he proclaims himself a follower of Christ all his life doesn't try to parse between when he lacked full understanding and was naive as a child but simply speaks to the whole life.

Taken together with other portions of Scripture, I think it would serve to demonstrate how many focus on profession as the beginning of life whereas the Scriptures do not always paint such a stark dividing line.

 

[earl40]

Taken together with other portions of Scripture, I think it would serve to demonstrate how many focus on profession as the beginning of life whereas the Scriptures do not always paint such a stark dividing line.

Also Our Lord Jesus says we do not know when or where The Spirit does His work.