Infant Baptism...your views? - Mothering Forums
1 2  3 
Religious Studies > Infant Baptism...your views?
AFWife's Avatar AFWife 03:05 AM 01-28-2009
My dad is a Methodist minister...when I got married we started attending an Assembly of God church and I've come to prefer it over the Methodist church. Basically, I'm much more conservative than I thought I was and AoG is more my style.

Well, my mom goes "I wish you'd let your dad baptize the baby when he gets here." When I mentioned I wasn't sure I agreed with infant baptism they got upset. (It's practiced in the Methodist church and not in AoG) My dad said something along the lines of, "I think that not believing in it diminishes God's power" because he supports that God can save the child throughout his/her life (I think that's what he was getting at). I think that baptism is an outward sign of an inward choice and a baby can't make that choice. It's the whole Age of Accountability thing in my book.

I'd be okay with him doing a dedication...but I DO NOT agree with a baptism as an infant. IF for some reason we did agree to it I would still require that our child get baptized again when he is more knowledgeable about the choice.


What are your views?

Theoretica's Avatar Theoretica 03:54 AM 01-28-2009
I think the concept of baptism itself is a tad sketchy as far as biblical requirements, and infant baptism is nowhere whatsoever.

So, ultimately it's your call
HTH
Smokering's Avatar Smokering 04:11 AM 01-28-2009
Not commanded, not practiced, goes against the Biblically-described purpose and function of baptism.

Give um hell.
tricia80's Avatar tricia80 04:16 AM 01-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Not commanded, not practiced, goes against the Biblically-described purpose and function of baptism.
:

A baby cannot choose to believe in God and follow him until he/she is old enough to understand. I was baptized as an infant in an RC church. I don't feel it helped me be closer to God etc. Now I am being rebaptized in a Mennonite Church because now I understand what I am doing.
Kidzaplenty's Avatar Kidzaplenty 05:52 AM 01-28-2009
: to all the above.
brightonwoman's Avatar brightonwoman 06:51 AM 01-28-2009
I agree with all the pp's

Baptism is a covenant and a symbol--imo it makes no sense to baptise someone who cannot choose it for him/herself. That is essentially forcing a covenant on them, and Christ never forces--He invites but then lets us make the choice.
We believe that a person needs to be old enough to choose for him/herself.

I do understand the notion of doing some kind of dedication of the child, choosing godparents or whatever if you do that kind of thing, but baptism, no.

Incidentally, I also believe that the bible supports baptism by immersion, so there again another reason to wait until they're older
Viola's Avatar Viola 06:58 AM 01-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFWife View Post
What are your views?
In my church, we believe in and practice infant baptism and feel it is scripturally sound, but I think what really matters is how you feel about it and what you believe. I actually chose not to get my children batized, because I was not willing to make a commitment to raise them a certain way.
battymama's Avatar battymama 07:01 AM 01-28-2009
No longer christian so i hope you dont mind me barging in

I disagree with infant baptism, at the moment i am dealing with family trying to get me to baptise our baby (catholic) i just dont get infant baptism! the baby has no choice in the matter, and no way of knowing what is going on. I would much rather ny child make thier own mind up when they are older. As it is i have offered to let them take the baby to be blessed and to meet their priest, which i think is generous considering we are pagan, but they think that is not good enough. Sorry to rant lol

We are actually thinking about having a welcoming/ naming ceromony at some point, perhaps for her first birthay. But it is different as we are not doing it into a particualr religeon, just into life if that make sense? Sorry naking
Bluegoat's Avatar Bluegoat 11:16 AM 01-28-2009
Well ,my church has always practiced infant baptism, I can give you a brief sketch of why.

My church (Anglican) believes Baptism is a sacrament, that is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." By which they mean it is something God wants us to do, which involves a sign (the water) and some special action on God's part. For baptism the action is: 1) the washing away of original sin and 2) grafting the member into the body of Christ.

So the question is, can a sacrament be done without the express consent of the person involved? After all, historically babies haven't been given communion in my church. (This is changing, which I have to say I am not totally comfortable with. The Orthodox church has done it for a long time.) That is a sacrament in cases other than baptism is seen as being a meeting between the will of the person receiving the sacrament and the will of God acting on the person.

Usually, in the case of baptism, it is argued that the parents and godparents are acting in the baby's stead, just as if they were making a medical decision for the baby. And that this is not unnatural, but a normal and natural way for human families to operate. The benefit is that the child has a kind of spiritual access to a special kind of help.

Of course, we also use confirmation, where as an adult the person makes the vows for him or her self.

My church also feels that there is good historical precedent for this practice; although initially most people being baptized were adults, soon into the Christian era whole families and babies were more likely to be baptized. The members of the early church (in the West) saw this as an adaptation that was in tune with the purpose and nature of baptism in a new situation.(Lots of children.)

As far as your church goes, you should probably make your own decision. But it might make your parents more comfortable if you explain why to them. What is baptism, it is just a symbolic ceremony or does something happen? What happens to babies who die unbaptized?

If you think it is just symbolic, and your parents are REALLY worried, you could always let your dad do the baptism, and then if your child, as an adult, thinks it was "invalid" she could have it done again. My church wouldn't see it that way, but some wouldn't have a problem with it.
AllyRae's Avatar AllyRae 11:32 AM 01-28-2009
I believe in infant baptism (and in fact, even though I was baptized at 19, DS1 was baptized at a month old, DS2 was baptized in an emergency baptism at birth, DD1 was baptized less than a month after her adoption, and DD2 will be baptized at 5 weeks old). But I'm Catholic, and in my church, there are other ways to make the decision throughout the lifetime--in 2nd grade there is reconciliation and first communion, and then confirmation as a teen. So, once the age of accountability hits, children in the Catholic church can still make the choice to continue in their Catholic faith.

Honestly, if the church wasn't set up like that, I wouldn't know what to believe. I don't believe that baptisms can be invalid, but I do believe that somewhere there needs to be a conscious choice by the individual--if not by baptism, then by confirmation or communion.
Kyyrah's Avatar Kyyrah 12:06 PM 01-28-2009
*
delicate_sunshine's Avatar delicate_sunshine 12:41 PM 01-28-2009
I believe in infant baptism. Early church fathers baptized infants. For me, it is more like a baby dedication thing, I guess. At least that is the best I can explain it. As the parent you are making a commitment to raise your child in the covenant. It sort of replaces the old covenant of circumcision. The babies under Jewish law didn't (don't) have a choice, it was the parents. Baptism doesn't guarantee salvation in my beliefs. I don't believe that infant baptism is necessary. My dh could explain it better. He's into theology and stuff. Our son actually has not been baptized b/c when we went to a church that did it (ours now doesn't) I wasn't sure about it. Then when I came to the point that even if I didn't know how I felt, I should submit to my husband's spiritual authority on the matter we were in a very anti paedo baptism community. Anyway, I believe it' also okay to let a child wait until they make a commitment. I see both sides.


(That's for my little boy sitting with me, he wanted me to put the green one up.)
NicaG's Avatar NicaG 01:11 PM 01-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
Well ,my church has always practiced infant baptism, I can give you a brief sketch of why.

My church (Anglican) believes Baptism is a sacrament, that is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." By which they mean it is something God wants us to do, which involves a sign (the water) and some special action on God's part. For baptism the action is: 1) the washing away of original sin and 2) grafting the member into the body of Christ.

So the question is, can a sacrament be done without the express consent of the person involved? After all, historically babies haven't been given communion in my church. (This is changing, which I have to say I am not totally comfortable with. The Orthodox church has done it for a long time.) That is a sacrament in cases other than baptism is seen as being a meeting between the will of the person receiving the sacrament and the will of God acting on the person.

Usually, in the case of baptism, it is argued that the parents and godparents are acting in the baby's stead, just as if they were making a medical decision for the baby. And that this is not unnatural, but a normal and natural way for human families to operate. The benefit is that the child has a kind of spiritual access to a special kind of help.

Of course, we also use confirmation, where as an adult the person makes the vows for him or her self.

My church also feels that there is good historical precedent for this practice; although initially most people being baptized were adults, soon into the Christian era whole families and babies were more likely to be baptized. The members of the early church (in the West) saw this as an adaptation that was in tune with the purpose and nature of baptism in a new situation.(Lots of children.)

As far as your church goes, you should probably make your own decision. But it might make your parents more comfortable if you explain why to them. What is baptism, it is just a symbolic ceremony or does something happen? What happens to babies who die unbaptized?

If you think it is just symbolic, and your parents are REALLY worried, you could always let your dad do the baptism, and then if your child, as an adult, thinks it was "invalid" she could have it done again. My church wouldn't see it that way, but some wouldn't have a problem with it.
:


I think, too, that in the Episcopal Church it's emphasized that baptism is something God does, not something you do. God is performing the action, and in the sacrament, the baptized person is receiving grace and new life, membership in the community, forgiveness of sins. I was baptized as an adult, and at first I approached it as something that I wanted to do, that I decided to do. But then my understanding of baptism changed, and I came to see it as something God was calling me to do.

I personally feel uncomfortable with the idea of withholding baptism until someone can make an informed choice, etc. etc. To me it implies that some people are worthy of membership in the Church, and others aren't because they can't live up to what God expects of them. If I had waited until I felt worthy, I never would have been baptized. I also think it's strange to have two "classes" of people within a church--those who are baptized and those who, for whatever reason, haven't made that commitment or don't "deserve" God's grace. To me, infant baptism emphasizes that we are all saved through God's grace alone, not by our own merit, even babies and children.
tricia80's Avatar tricia80 03:37 PM 01-28-2009
Baptism is the outward sign of an inward change... (make sense)

I became a Christian before I asked for Baptism. Baptism for me is to show the congregation that I am committed to being part of Christ's church. I am a Christian with or without Baptism you cannot change that. Being baptized does not change whether i am a true Christian and baptism isn't a ticket into heaven.. What happens to those in other countries where they give their life to the Lord but there is no one there to do an "official baptism".

I do not believe that babies go to hell, purgatory, limbo etc. All babies are innocent and yes they have a sinful nature but they are not inherently evil. A 2 yr old cannot comprehend sin. Heck my 10 yr old is having trouble fully grasping it. Yes she knows lying is wrong but she has no concept that tells her sin and the ramifications (she thinks she is getting to heaven on a bus)...

I hope this makes sense.. if not.. then i blame it on my poor shift work nurses brain...
DahliaRW's Avatar DahliaRW 03:42 PM 01-28-2009
We don't believe that children are born sinful, rather innocent, so there is no need for infant baptism. There is no example of an infant being baptized in the Bible. Only those who are old enough to consent to it and make a commitment to God. We believe that baptism is covenent between yourself and God to dedicate your life to Him and follow His ways. Baby's and children are not capable of making such a committment. And until one is old enough to understand sin and when they are doing it, they remain innocent.
angelpie545's Avatar angelpie545 04:11 PM 01-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightonwoman View Post
I agree with all the pp's

Baptism is a covenant and a symbol--imo it makes no sense to baptise someone who cannot choose it for him/herself. That is essentially forcing a covenant on them, and Christ never forces--He invites but then lets us make the choice.
We believe that a person needs to be old enough to choose for him/herself.

I do understand the notion of doing some kind of dedication of the child, choosing godparents or whatever if you do that kind of thing, but baptism, no.

Incidentally, I also believe that the bible supports baptism by immersion, so there again another reason to wait until they're older
Yes, it seems pretty in the Bible that baptism should be performed with the person being baptized requests it and understands fully the meaning and commitment of baptism. Also, baptism does not mean salvation. Salvation is through by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by baptism. Baptism is something that of course should be done and is needed, but it's not salvation. A person who is not baptized who has received Jesus is still saved.
LittleBlessings's Avatar LittleBlessings 04:18 PM 01-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by tricia80 View Post
:

A baby cannot choose to believe in God and follow him until he/she is old enough to understand. I was baptized as an infant in an RC church. I don't feel it helped me be closer to God etc. Now I am being rebaptized in a Mennonite Church because now I understand what I am doing.
I believe when you baptize a baby you as the parent are saying you are going to raise your child to walk with god. That child can again be baptized as an adult
MCatLvrMom2A&X's Avatar MCatLvrMom2A&X 04:27 PM 01-28-2009
I dont believe in it because a infant cannot be saved nor do they need to be since they are still totally innocent and will remain innocent until they reach the age of accountability and know when they are doing something wrong and understand the consequences. Before a child reaches that age they would go to heaven regardless.

But I also believe that as adults you dont have to be baptised only saved to go to heaven. You only have to be baptised to join a church. I have never been baptised even though I have been saved since my teens. I have no need to be as I have never desired to join a church.

Also a sprinkling of water on the head dosnt count as baptisim unless it is in the case of a person who is unable to walk out or be carried out into the water and be fully submurged. Though if they where that sick then baptisim would be totally optional anyway. I am not a big fan of the indoor baptisim either. Though there is nothing forbidding it.

I follow the Seperate Baptist teachings and my dh is Missonary Baptist and they believe the same way.
SquishyBuggles's Avatar SquishyBuggles 04:39 PM 01-28-2009
Spin-off question - Do you think Baptism by immersion is more valid or important than sprinkling of water? Why or why not?
Smokering's Avatar Smokering 04:55 PM 01-28-2009
Quote:
Spin-off question - Do you think Baptism by immersion is more valid or important than sprinkling of water? Why or why not?
Baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word baptisto, "to immerse, to dip, to plunge". If it's sprinkling, it isn't baptism per se. That is, as far as being an outward sign of commitment it is, but it doesn't very effectively symbolise the washing away of sins or the burial/rebirth thing. Pouring is probably in between the two. But the burial thing in particular I think is very vividly symbolised by being lowered into the water and reappearing 'clean'. Death to self, alive in Christ and all that.

The Didache (early NT text) has a cool discussion on how baptism was to be performed in the early church. It included, IIRC, fasting, a sort of catechism and rules about what water to use. 'Living' or running water was considered best, followed by still water or even warm water if necessary. I definitely think that sprinkling/pouring is a valid baptism in terms of intent, and might be necessary in certain situations; but if immersion is possible, I see no reason not to do it that way (although I saw one girl get baptised in her family's pool in winter and she kinda turned blue, so pick your spot!).
AFWife's Avatar AFWife 05:00 PM 01-28-2009
This post will be LONG because there are so many things I want to comment on...I'll edit the quoted posts to pull out the points I'm discussing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by brightonwoman View Post
Baptism is a covenant and a symbol--imo it makes no sense to baptise someone who cannot choose it for him/herself. That is essentially forcing a covenant on them, and Christ never forces--He invites but then lets us make the choice.
We believe that a person needs to be old enough to choose for him/herself.

I do understand the notion of doing some kind of dedication of the child, choosing godparents or whatever if you do that kind of thing, but baptism, no.
That's what I tried to explain to my dad. I'm fine with a dedication where I give an outward showing that I plan to raise my son in Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
If you think it is just symbolic, and your parents are REALLY worried, you could always let your dad do the baptism, and then if your child, as an adult, thinks it was "invalid" she could have it done again. My church wouldn't see it that way, but some wouldn't have a problem with it.
First of all, thank you for explaining so thoroughly the views of your church. My dad is the pastor and I didn't get the same kind of explanation...

I was just about to type "It's not that they're worried" but I'm not sure I believe that. They've made comments in the past linking my DH with the devil (yes, I'm serious. It's why we didn't have ANY relationship for many years) and I'm not sure they think that we, as a family, are Christ centered. So, they might be afraid that we'll never go to church and never get our children baptized...
I considered just "letting him do it" but, for me, it comes down to this is OUR child and OUR choice and if we don't agree with it I'm not going to buckle just to please my parents...selfish, I know. But it's a fight I've been fighting for years now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllyRae View Post
Honestly, if the church wasn't set up like that, I wouldn't know what to believe. I don't believe that baptisms can be invalid, but I do believe that somewhere there needs to be a conscious choice by the individual--if not by baptism, then by confirmation or communion.
In the AoG church baptism is just the outward sign. You don't HAVE to be baptized (I don't think...I'll ask) but they prefer it for the individual. We don't do confirmation and communion is given to everyone. There are specific requirements for membership (mainly a class) but as far as "being saved" that's your personal choice and you take it up with God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NicaG View Post
I personally feel uncomfortable with the idea of withholding baptism until someone can make an informed choice, etc. etc. To me it implies that some people are worthy of membership in the Church, and others aren't because they can't live up to what God expects of them. If I had waited until I felt worthy, I never would have been baptized. I also think it's strange to have two "classes" of people within a church--those who are baptized and those who, for whatever reason, haven't made that commitment or don't "deserve" God's grace. To me, infant baptism emphasizes that we are all saved through God's grace alone, not by our own merit, even babies and children.
Bolding mine for emphasis
That's what my dad was getting at. But again, the churches I've attended have never had a "class" system of baptized or saved or unsaved or whatever. Everyone has always been welcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCatLvrMom2A&X View Post
But I also believe that as adults you dont have to be baptised only saved to go to heaven. You only have to be baptised to join a church. I have never been baptised even though I have been saved since my teens. I have no need to be as I have never desired to join a church.
I agree. Baptism is only the outward showing of the inward choice. If you've made that inward choice and you and God know that...then you're saved IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SquishyBuggles View Post
Spin-off question - Do you think Baptism by immersion is more valid or important than sprinkling of water? Why or why not?
I don't have my Bible in front of me...but Jesus baptized by immersion (and was baptized that way) so, to me, that follows the biblical teachings a little more. Some churches (my dad) believe that just having water present is enough...When I finished confirmation class (a requirement in the methodist church) I didn't have to be baptized again for membership because I had been baptized a different denomination as a child. However, there was water present and he referenced it during the service.
But personally? I'm an immersion person.
MCatLvrMom2A&X's Avatar MCatLvrMom2A&X 05:05 PM 01-28-2009
Quote:
Spin-off question - Do you think Baptism by immersion is more valid or important than sprinkling of water? Why or why not?
It is very common here to have baptisim in the winter when the temp is near freezing. They even break the ice in some instances. The thing about it though is if you ask the preacher doing the baptisim and the one being baptised they will tell you the water is nice and warm and I have never in all my 36+ years heard of anyone getting sick from being in freezing water or complain about the water being cold

Any time baptisim is discussed it always reminds me of an old joke.

A man named Bill married a woman who was baptised by sprinkling. Bill's father wanted her baptised proper. Bill goes to his father and says

Bill "What if she walks out into the water up to her knees and then the preacher sprinkles her with water?"
Dad "NO! NO! that aint proper!"
Bill "OK dad what if she walks out up to her chest...?"
Dad "NO that aint proper"
Bill "Well what if she walk out until the water is up to her nose"
Dad "NO! NO! That aint proper!"
Bill "I knew it, its only the top of your head that counts anyhow!"

it is so funny put to words the way it is meant to be.

Like I said in my pp sprinkling in some instances is needed for someone who cannot get out into the water but if you can get out in there then you should the way Jesus was baptised and be submerged all the way under from foot to top of the head.
SquishyBuggles's Avatar SquishyBuggles 05:13 PM 01-28-2009
To answer my own question, I don't think Baptism by immersion is necessary. Then again, I'm not a literal Bible purist, so I think that a representation is fine. You and God know what is in your heart, I don't think that God really cares if you're immersed in water or not.

Not knocking you if you DO think immersion is necessary, this is just my opinion.
BMG580's Avatar BMG580 12:23 AM 01-29-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by delicate_sunshine View Post
I believe in infant baptism. Early church fathers baptized infants.For me, it is more like a baby dedication thing, I guess. At least that is the best I can explain it. As the parent you are making a commitment to raise your child in the covenant. It sort of replaces the old covenant of circumcision.
Yes, this.

I used to not believe in infant baptism. I began studying Christian history and theology a little more in depth and not only was the tradition of infant baptism begun in the very young Church, there are sound theological arguments for it.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp
lilyka's Avatar lilyka 02:45 AM 01-29-2009
Nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to be old enough to choose baptism. All it says is that all members of the house were baptized which to me would include the children.

also this has been the practice of the church since early times and only recently (in terms of church history) did people start waiting.

I figure i would rather have my children choose to walk away than hold back blessings while waiting for them to choose to take hold of them.

I also believe baptism is more than a symbol. I believe there is supernatural stuff there we do not fully grasp in this life. I believe there is a real purpose and reason and blessing to baptism.

age of accountability doesn't really work for me because that involves you judging when someone is Christian enough and when their belief is good enough for baptism. yikes! Also there are some people who's minds never really reach that point of accountability.

and I think immersion is important because thats what has always been done in the early church and what was done to Christ.
Smokering's Avatar Smokering 05:04 AM 01-29-2009
This book, which ironically was written by paedobaptists, gives a good look at the 'infant baptism was practiced by the early church' claim. It's worth a read.

Quote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to be old enough to choose baptism.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say you don't have to be old enough to choose baptism. What it does say is that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, which in sharp contradistinction to the Old is written on hearts, not flesh; which is an internal, not external covenant; and which is given to individuals based on faith and God's plan, not to families/tribes/a nation based on the faith of their forebears. You're not automatically part of the New Covenant just because your parents are; becoming a Christian is by salvation, not default. Hence, while infant baptism is at first glance a minor issue, it actually has huge implications for covenant theology and the nature of salvation. Hebrews addresses this in some detail, precisely because it's important.
Quote:
All it says is that all members of the house were baptized which to me would include the children.
Not if the very nature of baptism precluded children from doing it. "My whole house came down with the 'flu" probably does mean every human member of the household; "My whole family loved reading the Laura Ingalls Wilder books you lent us" presumably excludes the three-month-old. In the context of baptism, which is a command given to believers on the occasion of their repentance from sin, babies would be excluded from the 'household' out of common sense (along with, presumably, the family goldfish).
Quote:
age of accountability doesn't really work for me because that involves you judging when someone is Christian enough and when their belief is good enough for baptism. yikes!
What's yikes about that? Belief that's 'good enough' for baptism isn't rocket surgery. If someone can't articulate "Christ died for my sins", there's a problem. I don't believe in an 'age of accountability' per se, in that I don't believe people are born innocent; but that people's minds develop as they get older is obvious. I wouldn't let my daughter join Girl Guides if I didn't think she knew what it entailed; so why would I let her make a public profession of faith if it was clear her mind wasn't developed enough to have that faith? And why would I give her the lie by making it for her when she was too young to have any say in the matter?

Not picking on you in particular, your post just neatly summarises some of the arguments made on this thread.
Bluegoat's Avatar Bluegoat 11:09 AM 01-29-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
[URL="http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-Church-H-Stander/dp/0952791315"]



so why would I let her make a public profession of faith if it was clear her mind wasn't developed enough to have that faith?
Ah, but is that the main point of baptism?

As far as immersion - we Anglicans are quite wishy-washy about the whole thing We say lots of water is more appropriate, but don't really get all that specific about it. Most Anglican Baptisms are done inside at a font, and there are some really lovely ones; my college chaple had one made from a ship's bell.

The Roman Catholics are quite exact about most things and say that the water has to "flow" on the person, so you must at least pour it. I suppose you could perhaps swish the babies head? I believe they allaso allow you to use saliva in an emergency, but it must require quite a large gob if it's going to flow
mamabadger's Avatar mamabadger 01:51 PM 01-29-2009
The Orthodox Church does baptize infants, and by immersion - three immersions, in fact. As mentioned by PPs, it was something practiced by the early Church. It is understood to be the NT form of reception into the Church, replacing circumcision, which was also performed on infants.

I am not sure why intellectual understanding of baptism, or of other theological concepts, would be a requirement.
First, because a baby has a soul, and can receive blessings without being able to understand them. We also give babies Communion once they have been baptized, and that is something they could live a hundred years without really understanding - yet it benefits them spiritually.
Second, because this requirement would mean that nobody who is developmentally disabled could ever be received into the church.
Christ advised us to become like little children. There is nothing wrong with scholarly study of theology, but we should not give it more importance than it deserves.
Of course, if baptism is viewed not as a sacrament but as a sort of contract, it makes sense to require the person to be an adult.
tricia80's Avatar tricia80 02:11 PM 01-29-2009
BTW i love this thread.. its thought provoking and everyone is being respectful...

Spin off question: Do you (general you) that faith is a prerequisite for baptism? or better yet Do faith and baptism go together? (does that make sense)
PreciousTreasures's Avatar PreciousTreasures 02:26 PM 01-29-2009
We are protestant non-denominational and we baptize our children. This is our reasoning:
In the old testament when the articles being made for God to go into the temple the priests anointed them with water and/or oil. This wasn't because the object had made a decision but because they were setting aside the object for the Lord. In much the same way we baptized our children as a ceremony of setting them aside, a spiritual and physical anointing, for the Lord. With a view to our commitment to God and to them to raise them in the ways of the Lord. As they get older and make their own decision for Christ, they will enter into personal baptism as a sign of their personal decision.

Hope that helps.
1 2  3 

Up