What is the case for anti paedobaptism?

[MJFlores]

The Mikvah - Mikvah - Chabad
www.chabad.org › … › Acts of Transformation › Mikvah
Immersion in the mikvah has offered a gateway to purity ever since the creation of man. The Midrash relates that after being banished from Eden, Adam sat in a river that flowed from the garden. This was an integral part of his teshuvah (repentance) process, of his attempt at return to his original …

(Ritual purification is nothing new. Why so keen to make the other guy wrong?)

A baby can be circumcised because circumcision does not require the baby to believe or repent as a prerequisite for him to have his foreskin removed.

However, in the TRUE BAPTISM, the person to be baptized should have the capacity to believe and to repent.

On the FAKE BAPTISM, a person do not have such rules to follow. Heck, you can even baptize your dog if you want.

 

[sooda]

A baby can be circumcised because circumcision does not require the baby to believe or repent as a prerequisite for him to have his foreskin removed.

However, in the TRUE BAPTISM, the person to be baptized should have the capacity to believe and to repent.

On the FAKE BAPTISM, a person do not have such rules to follow. Heck, you can even baptize your dog if you want.

You have issues. Ever consider live and let live?

 

[iam1me]

You have issues. Ever consider live and let live?

No one's saying that you can't perform an infant baptism if it so pleases you. Rather were noting that, based upon the scriptures, it has no spiritual significance.

 

[exchemist]

Michael Servetus called paedobaptism "...an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."
I was wondering what the emphasis is on.

I've never heard of Michael Servetus but he sounds hysterical and off his meds. Who is he and why should anyone take any notice of him?

 

[Kilk1]

Michael Servetus called paedobaptism "...an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."
I was wondering what the emphasis is on.

I did a written debate on the subject here:

Debate Argument: Bible baptism includes sprinkling or pouring on one's head. | Debate.org

If you want to read it and hear both sides, let me know any questions you might have!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Michael Servetus called paedobaptism "...an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."
I was wondering what the emphasis is on.

The emphasis that the religion you're born in gets you to Heaven rather than personal trust followed by volitional baptism as one result.

 

[dianaiad]

Michael Servetus called paedobaptism "...an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."

I don't believe in original sin either, but its the basis of Jesus crucifixion … dying for our sins.

Infant baptism is more a promise or a dedication.. The child is also introduced to the congregation. IMO its nothing to get exercised about.

I believe that baptism should be done when the person (or child) is old enough to have some clue as to what it's for, at least.

"The age of accountability,' when someone is aware that there is a right and wrong, and knows when s/he's done something wrong...and wants to fix that. We figure it's around eight years old. At least, that's what the church places it as, generally, and having raised five kids, I think the church is pretty well right about that. By the time a kid is eight, s/he's sneaky enough to know when s/he's about to do something wrong and try to hide it, anyway.

It's also old enough to have a basic understanding of what baptism is about, so that s/he has some inkling of what it means to him or her.

We do not recognize any baptism but ours, anyway, so it doesn't matter much. To us. anyway, whether other people sprinkle their newborns. If they want to join us, they have to get baptized by someone WE think has the authority to do so.

I do believe that, given what baptism is 'for,' it would be much better if the one getting baptized has some idea of what is happening and what it's all about.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This has turned into a debate, and sooner or later its all just going to wind up getting reported, moderated, deleted, chopped all to pieces.

 

[sooda]

I

Is the baptism a declaration of faith or a promise to inculcate faith in another? Does the baptism directly or indirectly involve the baptisee?

When you have your chioren

 

[MJFlores]

You have issues. Ever consider live and let live?

You have to do things right.
If one want to be saved on Judgement Day.
Now if one has a religion for the sake of having one or
having a religion just for fancy then
I'm very sorry it is just a waste of time
and that will not one live, when all things pass away.

 

[Sjruru]

I am limited in what I am allowed to say because of the section we are posting in. On RF in order to keep people from getting into fistfights all over there are some forum rules. In a section not marked 'Debate' we aren't allowed to start debates only offer opinions. I understand there may be some disagreement about what a liberal Christian is, and we can discuss it sometime and also whatever it is you think are the boundaries of things. Here is a comment I previously made in a debate about that:



I feel a Bible student reaches a point at which they can see Jesus saying not to judge who is and who isn't Christian based on what they say and only based on what they do, and I don't feel Jesus is caught up in details about whether the wine is sweet or alcoholic, and I believe love covers a multitude of sins including doctrinal errors. Overall I respect Michael Servetus rejection of politics in the church, and I think its sad that he was killed for trying to fix everything.

Well if that was the case then that seems to allow a serial killer to exist so long as it is acceptable to his personal Jesus. I definitely feel christianity is doctrinal and the doctrine has implications and you must follow those implications. For instance going extinct is against the lord as he said be fruitful and multiply. Being a gesellschaft, liberal Christian includes 0-1 child families and extinction. I see it as a contradiction

 

[Sjruru]

The baptism of infants/children has no spiritual meaning. Baptism is supposed to be a symbolic act of one's repentance. An infant neither has anything to repent of, nor the ability to repent. A child similarly lacks the necessary understanding of good and evil, sin and repentance. It is a farce to please the parents.

>no spiritual meaning
Edgy

 

[Sjruru]

I did a written debate on the subject here:

Debate Argument: Bible baptism includes sprinkling or pouring on one's head. | Debate.org

If you want to read it and hear both sides, let me know any questions you might have!

I'm curious what would, to a reformist of early Christian, make paedobaptism evil. I don't buy consent as that's an enlightenment principle. The bible didn't establish paedobaptism to promote equality of age.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well if that was the case then that seems to allow a serial killer to exist so long as it is acceptable to his personal Jesus. I definitely feel christianity is doctrinal and the doctrine has implications and you must follow those implications. For instance going extinct is against the lord as he said be fruitful and multiply. Being a gesellschaft, liberal Christian includes 0-1 child families and extinction. I see it as a contradiction

10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums
Religious forums is structured to provide spaces for many different kinds of conversations. Different kinds of conversations belong in different areas of the forum:

1) Debates should be kept to the debate areas of the forums, including Religious Debates, General Debates, and Political Debates. Debating anywhere other than these forums may result in moderation. Same Faith Debates is governed by special rules described here. Only members of the specified groups(s) can participate in these threads....

 

[Sjruru]

I don't find that to be debating since we have to deconstruct biases to find a purely theological answer

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't find that to be debating since we have to deconstruct biases to find a purely theological answer

Its not up for discussion, but I will explain how it is treated here by staff. RF is set up in a way that if people don't want to debate or listen to criticism they don't have to. Its all about where they post. If it doesn't say Debate on it, then there is no deconstructing of biases, sniping of any kind, peer review etc.

 

[metis]

I would suggest that if one doesn't believe in infant baptism then maybe they shouldn't have their children baptized.

And for those who do believe in infant baptism, they can have their children baptized.

Problem solved.

 

[Sjruru]

Its not up for discussion, but I will explain how it is treated here by staff. RF is set up in a way that if people don't want to debate or listen to criticism they don't have to. Its all about where they post. If it doesn't say Debate on it, then there is no deconstructing of biases, sniping of any kind, peer review etc.

Alright well I don't understand your response outside of a contemporary viewpoint in regards to the OP although it is interesting

 

[Sjruru]

I would suggest that if one doesn't believe in infant baptism then maybe they shouldn't have their children baptized.

And for those who do believe in infant baptism, they can have their children baptized.

Problem solved.

You ever feel like you're not even scratching the surface you're just covering ground other ppl made u cover? If you aren't everyone perpetually should, it's a virtue

 

[metis]

You ever feel like you're not even scratching the surface you're just covering ground other ppl made u cover? If you aren't everyone perpetually should, it's a virtue

I think I understand what you're saying above, and welcome here to RF.