infant baptism or older - Page 3

[lilyka]

I hardly see circ/ear peircing as the same thing. You can't walk away from those even if you walk away from the symbolism/covenant they represent (if they were done for those reasons) baptism is water. you dry. if you choose to reject your baptism later no harm done. I don't really see how permantly altering someone body and dunking them in water can be compared. we make choices how our children will be raised weather we choose to raise them in the faith or not. either way they will have to choose to continue in the path we started or walk away from it, baptized or not.

[wasabi]

Originally Posted by lilyka

I hardly see circ/ear peircing as the same thing. You can't walk away from those even if you walk away from the symbolism/covenant they represent (if they were done for those reasons) baptism is water. you dry. if you choose to reject your baptism later no harm done. I don't really see how permantly altering someone body and dunking them in water can be compared. we make choices how our children will be raised weather we choose to raise them in the faith or not. either way they will have to choose to continue in the path we started or walk away from it, baptized or not.

Yes exactly.

I was actually baptised twice. Once as an infant when my mom was married and attending a chruch that had infant baptism. Then she remarried and was a member of a nondenominational charismatic church and they didn't do that. So they had me rebaptised when I was about 8 or so I guess. They then later joined yet another denomination that did do infant baptism so I was also confirmed when I was 16. So I mean if your child grows up and feels that the infant baptism was not a true baptism and not what they want it's not as though they can't choose to be baptised into the faith of their choosing.

[frog]

Originally Posted by lilyka

I hardly see circ/ear peircing as the same thing. You can't walk away from those even if you walk away from the symbolism/covenant they represent (if they were done for those reasons) baptism is water. you dry. if you choose to reject your baptism later no harm done. I don't really see how permantly altering someone body and dunking them in water can be compared. we make choices how our children will be raised weather we choose to raise them in the faith or not. either way they will have to choose to continue in the path we started or walk away from it, baptized or not.

See, I don't think you CAN walk away from baptism. "You have been sealed with the cross and marked as Christ's own forever." I don't think that's my decision to make.

Altering someone's soul is, IMO, no different than altering their body and I won't do it.

That said, I'm also not out on a public tear to eliminate infant baptism and, while I've not been asked to do so, I'd consider being a Godparent and witnessing for another person's child. I know it doesn't make sense, but that's where I am on it.

[umsami]

The one thing I do like about infant baptism (at least in the traditions I'm familiar with) is the appointment of Godparents--which really can make a vital difference if they take their job seriously. For those of you who don't have infant baptism, does your tradition have Godparents or something similar?? Just curious.

[frog]

Originally Posted by umsami

The one thing I do like about infant baptism (at least in the traditions I'm familiar with) is the appointment of Godparents--which really can make a vital difference if they take their job seriously. For those of you who don't have infant baptism, does your tradition have Godparents or something similar?? Just curious.

I love the idea of Godparents, too. While I'm not "official," I'm a Godmother to several of the Small Friends.

[angelpie545]

Originally Posted by umsami

The one thing I do like about infant baptism (at least in the traditions I'm familiar with) is the appointment of Godparents--which really can make a vital difference if they take their job seriously. For those of you who don't have infant baptism, does your tradition have Godparents or something similar?? Just curious.

I am among the "I don't do infant baptism" camp, but my kids do have godparents. They are my best friend and her partner, and I am the godmother of her child. I agree that godparents, when taken within the proper contexts as you were saying, can be great for kids. So far it's worked out very well for me and my friend.

[Smokering]

As regards the 'household baptisms', I have addressed that in a previous post; as regards the new covenant, I disagree that baptism is the equivalent of circumcision. If so, only males would be baptised. The New Covenant is an internal, spiritual covenant, every member of which is saved; the Old Covenant was an external, physical covenant, which included the saved and the unsaved (Romans 9:6-8). As such, baptism is something which must be performed by the individual as an expression of faith. By its very nature, infants are excluded from this.

Infant baptism certainly was practiced fairly early on in church history, but I don't see how that proves it was Scriptural--the early church is recorded to have worn white at their assemblies, but that doesn't mean it's 'Biblical' to wear white to church. Heresies, differing opinions and sects arose extremely early in Christian history, so the antiquity of a practice is no evidence for its truth. None of the texts that have been given prove that infant baptism was commanded or practiced in Scripture. Furthermore, there is some evidence that infant baptism was not as widely practiced among the early Church as some denominations would have us believe. The Didache, as I have mentioned earlier, mentions practices and requirements of baptism which would have been unsuitable or impossible for an infant.

[AlpineMama]

We have a Naming Ceremony in the first year of the baby's life. It's not binding at all; it's just introducing the baby to the community and to God. Then we have a Dedication at age 7, where they can choose to learn about the faith, a First Confirmation at age 14 which is kind of like a Catholic confirmation... Then Second Confirmation comes at around age 21 or around there, perhaps after higher education is completed, etc. This is the ceremony that is binding and what makes the individual a FULL adult member of the faith. So there's a lot of steps which the individual has to make depending on his/her maturity level. I kinda like how that works out...

(Oh, and for people who don't start off as an infant member of the community, the same steps are followed, except Naming/Dedication happen at the same time and there is usually at least a year of study between each step.)

[onelilguysmommy]

i think baptism is dedicating yourself to serve god..and an infant cant do that, so it is the adults in the babys life saying they will raise the child in the religion of choice. i dont see how it is anything for the baby, because the baby doesnt know what is going on. i dont think that it is a have to have to get into heaven, either, nor do i think doing good deeds your whole life will get you in.
i think it is something to form a deeper bond between and a promise from yourself to god.

and i hope i didnt insult anyone who does believe how i said i dont..just stating how i feel about it.

[orangebird]

I'm not religious. But pretending I am for the sake of the thread.

Baptism seems like it should be a conscious personal decision.

I can not believe any god would make it so a child's salvation was on the shoulders of his parents.

If I do not baptize my boys, I don't think there is a conceivable god (except for an evil one) who would deny them because of my decision.

Most people still born into this world aren't to Christian parents, let alone baptizing ones. There is no way the whole of human babies is held responsible for this.

How could that be?

[StacyL]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Most people still born into this world aren't to Christian parents, let alone baptizing ones. There is no way the whole of human babies is held responsible for this.

How could that be?

Well, we are talking about the same God who sent the angel to slay all the firstborns due to Pharaoh's stubborn-ness in the Bible, and also drowned the world saving only eight people, right?

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by StacyL

Well, we are talking about the same God who sent the angel to slay all the firstborns due to Pharaoh's stubborn-ness in the Bible, and also drowned the world saving only eight people, right?

but that argument never makes sense to me. so he is a ruthless cruel God for moving children from one plane to another glorious plane? in order to understand this we have to put death into perspective and think on it from an eternal level not a human one.

[StacyL]

Originally Posted by magstphil

in order to understand this we have to put death into perspective and think on it from an eternal level not a human one.

Yes, that is exactly my point.

In the Church's view, the punishment due to original sin for the unbaptized innocent is not at all cruel or unjust, nor was God's punishment of the world during the Flood. God's Justice is Perfect, but we cannot see that now from our limited human perspective which exists outside of eternity, though we will see it and understand at our Judgment.

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by frog

See, I don't think you CAN walk away from baptism. "You have been sealed with the cross and marked as Christ's own forever." I don't think that's my decision to make.

Altering someone's soul is, IMO, no different than altering their body and I won't do it.

But if you don't believe it's true then as far as you're concerned, nothing has happened. No change in your soul has taken place in your mind. It's just some bath you got in a church. You don't regenerate a foreskin if you think circumcising is wrong as an adult.

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by StacyL

In the Church's view, the punishment due to original sin for the unbaptized innocent is not at all cruel or unjust, nor was God's punishment of the world during the Flood. God's Justice is Perfect, but we cannot see that now from our limited human perspective which exists outside of eternity, though we will see it and understand at our Judgment.

:

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Can I see some Scriptural texts on that, please?

You could try the links I've provided.

[frog]

Originally Posted by CherryBomb

But if you don't believe it's true then as far as you're concerned, nothing has happened. No change in your soul has taken place in your mind. It's just some bath you got in a church. You don't regenerate a foreskin if you think circumcising is wrong as an adult.

I understand that. I'm not EQUATING baptism and circumcision, but my beliefs about consent extend to the soul, which is the connection between them for me.

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by StacyL

Yes, that is exactly my point.

In the Church's view, the punishment due to original sin for the unbaptized innocent is not at all cruel or unjust, nor was God's punishment of the world during the Flood. God's Justice is Perfect, but we cannot see that now from our limited human perspective which exists outside of eternity, though we will see it and understand at our Judgment.

ohhhh, gotcha! and i agree.

[Smokering]

You could try the links I've provided.

This one?
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

It is full of non sequiters. I've already commented on the 'water and the Spirit' issue, but take quotes like this:

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

HOW does commanding the apostles to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit equate to 'baptism is salvific'? This isn't explained at all. I mean, could you syllogise it for me?

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Acts 9:18 nowhere says that Paul had to be baptised to be forgiven his sin--it simply says he was baptised. Rampant eisegesis!

Luke 23:43 - the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word "paradise," He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol" meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.

Anachronistic. The phrase--indeed, the concept--'baptism by desire' is not in the Bible. It is only necessary if you presuppose the normative necessity of baptism. If anything, the thief-on-the-cross incident serves as evidence for the opposite position, not the Catholic one!

I realise these above quotes are simply discussing baptism as a whole, not infant baptism per se. However, the following section on infant baptism is worse. None of the texts used to defend the practice actually demonstrate that infant baptism is commanded, endorsed or practiced in Scripture. The interpretations have very little relevance to the actual texts, or distort them completely. Look at this:

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Completely ignoring Romans 9:6-8, in which Paul specifically states that the New Covenant is 'narrower', in one sense, than the Old; as it is specifically limited to believers.

Or this:

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

The last sentence simply does not follow from the first. Another non sequiter.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Another non sequiter.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Jesus is referring to the faith and simplicity of children. Of course believing children should be baptised--no Christian group denies that! But there is a difference between baptising believing children and unbelieving infants.

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Ditto what I said above, plus I think this misses the point of what Jesus was saying.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

Huh? No, this disproves the Catholic position, which claims that baptism is salvific! No Protestant will fail to acknowledge that baptism is sometimes wrongly applied.

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Uh... but it says nothing about baptism or salvation. Salvation works by grace through faith, which infants cannot possess. Being blessed is not the same as being saved.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.

'Those far off' refers to the Gentiles. The verse actually says, if you don't conveniently truncate it: 'For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord God calls to Himself'. So, can the children of believers be baptised? And Gentiles? Sure. If God calls them to Himself. How do we know if He has done that? By a profession of faith. Infants cannot have or profess faith; therefore they should not be baptised.

Then follow some 'arguments from inclusion' quotes which I have already addressed.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

Huh? This... just doesn't follow. Again with the argument from silence--who said Lydia's household, or the jailer's, did not believe? In fact in the latter case, the entire household rejoiced, meaning they weren't just passive in the baptismal process. The rest of the paragraph deals with what the Church has always taught--which is Tradition, not Scripture.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

No, they need salvation just like adult souls. Again with the eisegesis! This Scripture proves nothing about infant baptism!

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom.

And again.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

No, through salvation; and again, no Christian denies that children can be saved.

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Just... wow.

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.

Healing and salvation are two entirely different things. Again, a non sequiter.

1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

Sanctified is not the same thing as justified.

I'm sorry, but these quotes do nothing to convince me that the paedobaptist position is Scriptural--in fact, entirely the opposite. The entire article presupposes infant baptism and then draws strange analogies to make perfectly innocent Scriptures mean things they do not. (The 2 Thess: 3-10 passage is perhaps the most, ah, flamboyant example of this). Other interpretations ignore the theological complexities of an issue, such as those that deal with the Old vs New Covenants. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as confrontational here, but to see these Scriptures advanced as 'proof' for infant baptism does make me angry. They are not proof.

[AnyMama]

Originally Posted by orangebird

I'm not religious. But pretending I am for the sake of the thread.

Baptism seems like it should be a conscious personal decision.

I can not believe any god would make it so a child's salvation was on the shoulders of his parents.

If I do not baptize my boys, I don't think there is a conceivable god (except for an evil one) who would deny them because of my decision.

Most people still born into this world aren't to Christian parents, let alone baptizing ones. There is no way the whole of human babies is held responsible for this.

How could that be?

There is nothing at all to tie baptism with salvation/going to heaven. Baptism is a human action, it does NOT impart salvation.

Therefore this argument has nothing to do with the question of to baptize or not. Truly, I think it's up to the person.