Infant baptism is a huge error!

[King James]

Infant baptism is something that should be deadly obvious to anyone that it is a ludicrous practice. Without conscience consent it means nothing, and therefore not only should not be done, it is actually a mockery of the practice of babtism. Jesus was 30. Everyone getting babtised in the bible were adults. They were also fully submerged, not a few drops of water flicked onto your forehead.

 

[Classik]

I don't see a problem with it. I agree that it isn't technically correct as far as repent and be baptized and so forth, because the baby isn't making a conscious choice, however, I don't see it as a wrong (i.e. sin) to do so. I see where it would be sort of a dedication to the Lord of the baby's life and upbringing. I see nothing wrong with that. When the child grows up to the age of reasoning, he/she should get baptized of his own accord. I don't think it's a huge error, just not technically correct.

Is that not kind of 'adding to the Word'? :dunno

 

[Mountainshield]

The State Church of Norway, which is protestant we practice infant baptism with a name ceremony in the Church which is very nice and good ceremony to welcome the new brother/sister to the Church. When you reach 14 however you have a confirmation which is a new baptism. When I was 14 I was a communist so I had the secular alternative baptism instead which is a empty ceremony by the Norwegian Humanist Organization where your presented a rose and have a party with the other atheists 14 year olds, where you drink yourself wasted and usually loose your virginity as a symbol of reaching adulthood.

Now though I'm waiting to go to Israel and be truly baptized there.

 

[Mike]

I have a hard time with it. I grew up in the Catholic church, and we've been in the Lutheran Missouri Synod for 20 years. I've come to be very uncomfortable when babies are baptized. I believe the best thing to do is to dedicate the baby, teach him about the Lord, and pray for the day he makes a conscious decision to be baptized himself.

The strongest biblical support they can point to is really no evidence at all. It's when the jailer is baptized along with his whole household. They reason that there was almost certainly a child in the house, but that's a big assumption.

The main reason I hung on to support of infant baptism for so long is something I still struggle with a bit. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in baptism is by His power; not ours. So it can follow that He is certainly capable of instilling the seed of faith by an unaware infant.

All said, though, there is not any model of it in scripture, no directive to do it, and usually there is a call for confession and repentance before baptism when it is spoken of.

 

[tohelp]

Just as infant Jewish males are circumcised as an expression the convenant within the community of God's people, infant Christians are baptised as the expression of inclusion inChrist's new convenant. It is the means of God's grace to the child within the Christian family. Circumcision under the covenant of Abraham was applied to infants on the basis of parental faith within the nation of God's people. Today we are part of that covenant through faith in Christ. The new sign of the covenant, water baptism, can likewise be applied to infants on the basis of parental faith.

Then that is not baptism and should not be called baptism. A person undergoes baptism as a symbol to show that he has repented and accepted Jesus as his savior. A ritual that is not done for that purpose is not baptism. "Dedication" is the apt word for the ritual where a baby is invited into the church as a member.

Frankly, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about every detail of our Christian theology; there is a certain amount of mystery, and God will save whom God will save. I've accepted Christ's as savior, I do my best to live a life according to Christ's example of humility, service and sacrivice, and leave the rest to Him.

Well you should if you need to grow. If we do not give attention to the doctrine we could be deceived by the Devil who is waiting for an opportunity. Do not forget that Satan is there.

I don't see a problem with it. I agree that it isn't technically correct as far as repent and be baptized and so forth, because the baby isn't making a conscious choice, however, I don't see it as a wrong (i.e. sin) to do so. I see where it would be sort of a dedication to the Lord of the baby's life and upbringing. I see nothing wrong with that. When the child grows up to the age of reasoning, he/she should get baptized of his own accord. I don't think it's a huge error, just not technically correct.

It is wrong to call it Baptism because that is not what it is. Either you should throw out such practices from your church or change the name of the ritual. The devil's work is to deceive. He takes another ritual and gives it the same name as a legitimate ritual and confuse people. It is because of having this ritual and calling it baptism that the Catholics do have the real baptism.

I pray that everybody gets my point.

 

[seagullplayer]

I do know churches that use it as part of a dedication service for the child. But when an infant/young child is dedicated, it is the parents that are making the commitment before God and the gathered people to raise the child in a manner that God would approve not the child. And it is only a man made ceremony.

I know it is a tradition in some Christian Faiths, I am not saying they are sinning in the practice, but it should be pointed out that this is NOT to replace the "Believers Baptism" the NT speaks of. We must be careful not to teach the traditions of man as the commandments of God.

 

[Mike S]

I do know churches that use it as part of a dedication service for the child. But when an infant/young child is dedicated, it is the parents that are making the commitment before God and the gathered people to raise the child in a manner that God would approve not the child. And it is only a man made ceremony.

I know it is a tradition in some Christian Faiths, I am not saying they are sinning in the practice, but it should be pointed out that this is NOT to replace the "Believers Baptism" the NT speaks of. We must be careful not to teach the traditions of man as the commandments of God.

It's a man made ceremony only in the sense that it's conducted by man, as is the case for everything else conducted in the church. And, whatever you think the NT speaks of, it is also man-made in the same sense, the entire New Testament was written by man. Jesus wrote nothing, unless you consider doodling in the dirt on one ocassion writing. We consider the Bible to be the word of God, but absolutely everything there comes to us through the filter of the men who recorded it. So, does that make it man-made?

Infant baptism has been with the church from the beginning, you can find as many early church fathers who advocated infant baptism as you can find advocating believer's baptism, and Paul writes about baptism in the Christian community as equivalent to circumcision in the Jewish communty; an expression of God's covenant. Baptism is God's grace at work in either event.

 

[Classik]

I know it is a tradition in some Christian Faiths, I am not saying they are sinning in the practice, but it should be pointed out that this is NOT to replace the "Believers Baptism" the NT speaks of. We must be careful not to teach the traditions of man as the commandments of God.

WELL SAID

 

[Classik]

I believe the best thing to do is to dedicate the baby, teach him about the Lord, and pray for the day he makes a conscious decision to be baptized himself.

Exactly what it should be.

 

[Classik]

What happenes to the people who refuse to get baptised when they grow up? (I mean the people who believe the one they did at infant takes care of Baptism)

 

[Mike S]

What happenes to the people who refuse to get baptised when they grow up? (I mean the people who believe the one they did at infant takes care of Baptism)

They've been baptised. Later they can be confirmed in the faith or not.

Baptism involves God's grace for us, but is not a guarantee that someone will not fall away from faith, nor is it a guarantee of salvation. Even as an adult, a man may profess faith in Christ, and be baptised - two different events - and later fail to achieve salvation. We in the Methodist church do not believe in the perseverance of the saints (that interpretation of the doctrine that teaches "once saved, always saved"), though many others of the Calvinist tradition do.

 

[stovebolts]

Apostasy always has an element of truth to it. That's why Apostasy is such an easy trap for the Church to fall into.... It's been happening since the 1st century so we should expect that it continues today.

 

[joseph]

Why was Jesus baptized? Was he repenting or accepting himself?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[farouk]

Why was Jesus baptized? Was he repenting or accepting himself?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

It was an act of humility which He called His followers to identify with.

Even on the occasion of His baptism, it was opportunity for God the Father to say: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased' (Matthew 3.17).

 

[stovebolts]

Why was Jesus baptized? Was he repenting or accepting himself?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Jesus tells us why he was baptized.

Matthew 3:15 But Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffereth him.

Isn't it ironic that a Christian is a follower of Christ. Jesus started his ministry by way of Baptism, yet so many followers of Christ won't follow Jesus into the Baptismal pool.

 

[Mike S]

Then that is not baptism and should not be called baptism. A person undergoes baptism as a symbol to show that he has repented and accepted Jesus as his savior. A ritual that is not done for that purpose is not baptism. "Dedication" is the apt word for the ritual where a baby is invited into the church as a member.



Well you should if you need to grow. If we do not give attention to the doctrine we could be deceived by the Devil who is waiting for an opportunity. Do not forget that Satan is there.



It is wrong to call it Baptism because that is not what it is. Either you should throw out such practices from your church or change the name of the ritual. The devil's work is to deceive. He takes another ritual and gives it the same name as a legitimate ritual and confuse people. It is because of having this ritual and calling it baptism that the Catholics do have the real baptism.

I pray that everybody gets my point.

Baloney, get off your soapbox! You have no more authority for your interpretation of the scripture than anyone else. I'm certainly willing to accept Origen's and Augustine's views before I'd accept yours.


I've merely responded to the OP with my church's understanding of baptism, without condemning anyone else's, or insisting they change. Show the same respect.

 

[farouk]

Baloney, get off your soapbox! You have no more authority for your interpretation of the scripture than anyone else. I'm certainly willing to accept Origen's and Augustine's views before I'd accept yours.


I've merely responded to the OP with my church's understanding of baptism, without condemning anyone else's, or insisting they change. Show the same respect.

It means dip.

Umm...baloney isn't exactly the most discreet term to contribute to its lexicography, either...

 

[Mike S]

It means dip.

I have no idea why you think that's important.

 

[farouk]

I have no idea why you think that's important.

mark: Since this thread is supposed to be about what a significant Biblical word means, and since you don't attribute any importance to the matter, seemingly, then I supposed it shows just how much of your ecclesiology has led you to the point where you don't seem to think it's important (but I can't read your mind, nor you our friend Stovebolt's).

Blessings.

 

[Mike S]

mark: Since this thread is supposed to be about what a significant Biblical word means, and since you don't attribute any importance to the matter, seemingly, then I supposed it shows just how much of your ecclesiology has led you to the point where you don't seem to think it's important (but I can't read your mind, nor you our friend Stovebolt's).

Blessings.

Since you've used the term "dip" I assume you're taking about immersion rather than sprinkling of water. I've not mentioned anything about either.

You certainly aren't implying that the term "dip" has something to do with whether or not believer's baptism or infant baptism is correct, are you?

And, your certainly wrong if you think I don't attribute any importance to baptism.