Infant Baptism

[lovebeingamomma]

It was suggested by someone that I post this here instead, so I am.

So I'm asking the "tough question" as it states in this forum's guidelines, why do you believe in infant baptism? Don't post if you're just angry that I don't believe in it, just post if you truly believe in it and would like to explain your position. I really don't know much about it and would like to hear why people do it, all I know is there is no account of it in the Bible, but there are several accounts of baby "dedications" which is different. I don't have a problem with traditions by the way, as long as it doesn't conflict with scripture.

[lilyka]

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma

It was suggested by someone that I post this here instead, so I am.

So I'm asking the "tough question" as it states in this forum's guidelines, why do you believe in infant baptism? Don't post if you're just angry that I don't believe in it, just post if you truly believe in it and would like to explain your position. I really don't know much about it and would like to hear why people do it, all I know is there is no account of it in the Bible, but there are several accounts of baby "dedications" which is different. I don't have a problem with traditions by the way, as long as it doesn't conflict with scripture.

Where on earth are their accounts of baby dedications? This was not even done in protestant churches until recently. Presenting a child at the temple was doe by Jews and is still done at 40 days by Orthodox Christians (called a Churching). This is the first time the mom and infant come into the church. for 50 days they rest and do not come into the temple. But from an Orthodox perspective Baptism beings us into the Christian family and imparts God grace on us. In the Bible whenever Baptism is mentioned it says "the whole household" was baptized. Not everyone but the Babies. This is a really good break down of it. Clearly it was something they struggled with at times but it was decided very early on that infant baptism was the thing. Only recently has anyone practiced adult only baptism and even more recently has it gained steam. Most older protestant denominations with history and tradition still, as they always have, practice infant baptism.

What it comes down to me is that no one should be denied this gift that Christ gave us to bring us unto himself. When he was baptized he sanctified the practice for all time. And the church has always done it this way (the Orthodox church and Catholic church have done it this way from the beginning of the church 2000 years ago. Protestants have done it since they started doing their thing 1000 years ago. Discriminating against infants is a fairly new thing in the context of the churches 2000 year history.)

[lovebeingamomma]

Jesus & Samuel to name two that were "presented" to the Lord, that's all I mean by baby dedication, acknowledging that our children belong to the Lord. Baby dedications are a tradition as well, but based off of the scripture. Still I see not one scripture mention dedicating infants. You just assume that there were infants in these "households" being baptized. Those who were baptized in these households believed. One account of a household be saved: the jailers family, and in Acts 16:34, it clearly states that they all believed. As in the case with all these households, they "believed" and were baptized. An infant cannot believe at infancy. As Mark 16:16 confirms: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Discriminating against infants, now that's quite a strong viewpoint. When John made the way for Christ, their is no mention of baby's being baptized. "Confess your sins and be baptized" is what was preached, how could an infant possibly confess their sins.

[love4bob]

I do it partly because of tradition(if a baby, or anyone for that matter, doesn't get baptized I don't think that they are going to go to hell or anything...), and also because it is just a beautiful start to that child's spiritual life. Blessing that baby with God may put a blessing on it's life and I hope would help to ward of evil that might try to come in to that child's life. I also don't believe on doing everything as literal in the bible... just because babies weren't scribed as being baptized in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also, in the times of Jesus NO ONE had been baptized(obviously...), so of course the adults would be documented as being baptized. It has to start with the parents then continue with the children. I bet that after those parents were baptized that they did the same for their children and babies. It is the way it has always been in the Catholic church(which I believe is the original church founded by Jesus).

**This is just what I believe. I understand that others feel differently, and that is fine!

[fruitfulmomma]

The Presbyterian position can be found here...

http://www.opc.org/cce/tracts/WhyInfantBaptism.html

[Arduinna]

These cover the Catholic sacrament of Baptism

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

[lovebeingamomma]

Originally Posted by love4bob

I do it partly because of tradition(if a baby, or anyone for that matter, doesn't get baptized I don't think that they are going to go to hell or anything...), and also because it is just a beautiful start to that child's spiritual life. Blessing that baby with God may put a blessing on it's life and I hope would help to ward of evil that might try to come in to that child's life. I also don't believe on doing everything as literal in the bible... just because babies weren't scribed as being baptized in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also, in the times of Jesus NO ONE had been baptized(obviously...), so of course the adults would be documented as being baptized. It has to start with the parents then continue with the children. I bet that after those parents were baptized that they did the same for their children and babies. It is the way it has always been in the Catholic church(which I believe is the original church founded by Jesus).

**This is just what I believe. I understand that others feel differently, and that is fine!

I like what you said. Because I can see your sincere heart in why you do it. I don't agree with speculating about the Bible of what may have happened when it's not written. So although I'm still not seeing the evidence to support this practice, your response still warms my heart

[lovebeingamomma]

I'm not reading all these links btw, they're way to lengthy. I asking why YOU baptize and if you want to explain, how you reconcile it with the scriptures (I like when I can see the actually cited scriptures instead of lengthy doctrine, no offense).

And what happens to your child's salvation if they reject it when they are older and understand and don't believe? Although I'm just assuming that infant baptism equals salvation in the Catholic church, am I wrong on this?

[Arduinna]

Don't need to reconcile it with scripture, Catholics are not sola scriptura, that is a Protestant innovation.

[love4bob]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

Don't need to reconcile it with scripture, Catholics are not sola scriptura, that is a Protestant innovation.

I already addressed my thoughts on the scripture and baptism too.

[lilyka]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

Don't need to reconcile it with scripture, Catholics are not sola scriptura, that is a Protestant innovation.

: Same for Orthodox. For us the scriptures are a part of church tradition. They came from an established, fully functioning early church. The Epistles were written to the church. Not written to create the church. We cling to the faith handed down by our fathers through word and epistle. Including infant baptism. I think it is just as possible for a baby to believe as it is for an adult. I think most people stop believing rather than the other way around.

[vbactivist]

Originally Posted by lilyka

: Same for Orthodox. For us the scriptures are a part of church tradition. They came from an established, fully functioning early church. The Epistles were written to the church. Not written to create the church. We cling to the faith handed down by our fathers through word and epistle. Including infant baptism. I think it is just as possible for a baby to believe as it is for an adult. I think most people stop believing rather than the other way around.

This is beautiful and how I've always felt, but never had a succinct way of expressing it. Thanks

[kaleidoscopeeyes]

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma

I don't have a problem with traditions by the way, as long as it doesn't conflict with scripture.

Even if infant baptism is not specifically documented in the Bible, I do not see how it conflicts either. I can not think of one place it is warned against.

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma

When John made the way for Christ, their is no mention of baby's being baptized. "Confess your sins and be baptized" is what was preached, how could an infant possibly confess their sins.

Confess your sins AND be baptized, not confess your sins SO THAT YOU MAY be baptized. These are rather two different acts in the Catholic (and Orthodox) faiths. Baptism is, I believe, largely a method by which one is inducted into the faith community. It is as much about the community as about the infant (or adult). We are in essence saying "You are one of us. We will support you and walk with you on the journey." Salvation is certainly not guaranteed by baptism, I don't think that is even true of Protestant beliefs. If a child grows up to reject the Church, then that is all it is. They are no longer a member of the Church. If they choose to be reconciled to it at a later date, they can (as I was). There is no need for re-baptism, because we as a community have already made the promise to you, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Arduinna

Don't need to reconcile it with scripture, Catholics are not sola scriptura, that is a Protestant innovation.

Yes that!

[Bluegoat]

By the time the Bible was fully canonized, infant baptism was already being practiced. I find it weird that people living 1500 years after Christ and the apostles think they have a better idea what the Scriptures were supposed to mean than those who actually lived within a generation of it being written, or at the same time is was canonized.

But as far as Scripture goes, Christ rebuked his followers when they sent the children away from him.

But what is more of a problem for me is, if we don't allow children to be baptized, what about others without the ability to assent in some way? Are they too cut off from God?

With regard to what happens to children who later grow up and reject God: being "saved" is not a thing that happens in a moment and is then fixed, not from our point of view. God made us creatures in time, and every moment and in every action we choose to move further towards him, or further away from him. I am a believing Christian, but I sometimes still move away, and choose "not-God" (though I hope generally I trend more in the other direction.) This is also true of the person who makes the decision not to be a Christian. He may make another choice in an hour, in a day, or in 50 years. (And it may be, given circumstances, that his choice is less bad, or culpable, than mine.) But always God's Grace is being offered, no matter which direction we are moving in. And if we are baptized then we have, perhaps, a special access to God's Grace, because we are grafted into the Body of Christ in a special way.

[fruitfulmomma]

(I like when I can see the actually cited scriptures instead of lengthy doctrine, no offense).

The vast majority of the document I linked to was scripture. I am not going to repeat it.

[Smokering]

By the time the Bible was fully canonized, infant baptism was already being practiced. I find it weird that people living 1500 years after Christ and the apostles think they have a better idea what the Scriptures were supposed to mean than those who actually lived within a generation of it being written, or at the same time is was canonized.

Actually, I don't believe that's true. I read a very interesting book by some Presbyterian scholars - ie, men who practiced infant baptism, and therefore had no reason to try to prove it wasn't historical - and they gave a very compelling argument that infant baptism was not practiced in the early church.

The Didache, for instance, describes the ritual of baptism in such a way that a baby would be unable to partake (I believe it involved fasting and prayer). Several church fathers are commonly cited as supporting infant baptism, when in fact they were using a word which meant (and possibly was, it's been a while since I read the book) "neophyte", ie. "new to the faith", not literal babies. The other piece of evidence for early-church infant baptism is artwork - there are some drawings, in catacombs I think, of a larger person baptising a smaller. However, as the authors pointed out, this doesn't necessarily depict an adult and a child - artistic convention of the day depicted more important personages as larger than less important ones, so it's possible that the drawings showed a church father or apostle baptising a "littler" member of the congregation, ie. an average joe.

I believe the authors concluded that infant baptism had developed fairly early on - within the first 400 years, say - but that it wasn't there from the beginning. Very interesting book.

Don't need to reconcile it with scripture, Catholics are not sola scriptura, that is a Protestant innovation.

Uh... yeah, you do. Even Catholics believe that Tradition is in harmony with Scripture, so if it can't be reconciled with it there's a problem. At least it must not go against any other information contained in the Bible (eg. the mechanics of salvation, the meaning of baptism etc), and aren't the "seeds" of the developed doctrine meant to be found in Scripture?

[lilyka]

I can justify just about anything with a creative use of scripture. We used to make a game out of it in youth group. Seriously. Doctrine, the tradition of our forefathers given to them and preserved and passed down to us through the grace of the Holy Spirit is what we use to explain and interpret the canonized scriptures. IF we take a piece or two of the puzzle (a random scripture here and there) and fling it about without any idea where it fits in we can interpret to mean just about anything. When I read "everyone" I take it at face value to mean everyone. Not everyone except for the children under a certain age. When you read it you see "everyone except...fill in the blank randomly?" when some people read it they see everyone except for people under 12. Some see people under 5. The thing that struck me about believers baptism while many protestants claim to share this belief none of them can agree on when someone is actually old enough to be allowed to receive the gift of Holy Baptism from God.

But what is more of a problem for me is, if we don't allow children to be baptized, what about others without the ability to assent in some way? Are they too cut off from God?

Thank you Bluegoat for bringing this up. Honestly infant baptism was the first chip in the wall for me and this was the argument that struck my heart to the very core. At the end of the day who are we to keep people from God. Any people.

[just_lily]

I'm going to preface this by saying that infant baptism is NOT something I get all riled up about. Do we all accept Jesus as saviour? Yay! You want to baptize your baby while I have dedication for mine? Fill your boots.

Even my pastor says that infant baptisms are not a hill he is willing to die on.

So I am not going to argue that baptizing infants is bad, or harmful, or shouldn't be done or anything like that.

Firstly, I agree that there are no biblical references for infant baptism. Jesus was baptized when he was 30. There are no accounts of John the Baptist dunking babies.

However, Mary and Joseph did bring baby Jesus to the temple, and present him to the Lord. I believe that this is what baby dedications are meant to replicate, even though we are not Jewish.

I also don't believe that an unbaptized baby (or adult for the matter) is going to go to hell or purgatory or anything like that.... so I don't see the rush.

We had my daughter dedicated. It wasn't so much about her, as it was about us. We acknowledged that she is a gift from God. We promised to raise her to know Jesus. Our entire congregation stood up in support of our family.

We did not promise that she will be a Christian. That is her choice to make when she gets older (which of course I hope she does!!).

I think accepting Jesus into your life is a choice. I believe that following that commitment up with baptism should also be a choice. I don't want to take that away from her.

My church will baptize youth (high school students) as well as adults. But it has to be their choice. The pastor counsels people that it is better to delay than to go ahead with a meaningless ceremony.

All that being said, DH and I were just baptized in our church on Sunday. We had to give our testimonies, and were then baptized by full immersion. It was awesome!!! I really hope I get to experience watching my daughter go through the same thing when she is older.

[Smokering]

When I read "everyone" I take it at face value to mean everyone.

Well, there are times when that's simply silly. That's what textual analysis and hermeneutics are for - and they are not the same thing as "flinging about" "random pieces" of Scripture.

There are good reasons to believe that "everyone" in household baptisms didn't literally mean every person and/or animal belonging to the household. A few have been mentioned on this thread. You could engage with them, instead of simply declaring you prefer a literal interpretation. Or when you read Joshua 7:24, do you really believe every single member of Israel - babies included - helped stone Achan?

But what is more of a problem for me is, if we don't allow children to be baptized, what about others without the ability to assent in some way? Are they too cut off from God?

Unless you have universalist leanings, I don't see how this is a logical or even a moral problem. If God decrees that some be cut off from Him, He is within His rights to decide the manner by which they be separated from Him - whether through rebellion or the incapacity to assent.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Actually, I don't believe that's true. I read a very interesting book by some Presbyterian scholars - ie, men who practiced infant baptism, and therefore had no reason to try to prove it wasn't historical - and they gave a very compelling argument that infant baptism was not practiced in the early church.

The Didache, for instance, describes the ritual of baptism in such a way that a baby would be unable to partake (I believe it involved fasting and prayer). Several church fathers are commonly cited as supporting infant baptism, when in fact they were using a word which meant (and possibly was, it's been a while since I read the book) "neophyte", ie. "new to the faith", not literal babies. The other piece of evidence for early-church infant baptism is artwork - there are some drawings, in catacombs I think, of a larger person baptising a smaller. However, as the authors pointed out, this doesn't necessarily depict an adult and a child - artistic convention of the day depicted more important personages as larger than less important ones, so it's possible that the drawings showed a church father or apostle baptising a "littler" member of the congregation, ie. an average joe.

I believe the authors concluded that infant baptism had developed fairly early on - within the first 400 years, say - but that it wasn't there from the beginning. Very interesting book.


Uh... yeah, you do. Even Catholics believe that Tradition is in harmony with Scripture, so if it can't be reconciled with it there's a problem. At least it must not go against any other information contained in the Bible (eg. the mechanics of salvation, the meaning of baptism etc), and aren't the "seeds" of the developed doctrine meant to be found in Scripture?

Unless you have universalist leanings, I don't see how this is a logical or even a moral problem. If God decrees that some be cut off from Him, He is within His rights to decide the manner by which they be separated from Him - whether through rebellion or the incapacity to assent.

The canon of scripture was still an issue under consideration late in the fourth century, Does that not count as the early church either? Why accept that they could make good decisions about that, but not over issues like infant baptism.

I don't really want to get into a debate about Calvinism; suffice it to say I think it is pretty much exactly not what the Church teaches, and against both Tradition and Scripture. One needn't be a universalist to believe that salvation and union is offered to all people.