I was talking about the commitment demanded by the Church. When the Church has had the power to do it, it has imposed its authority and rules on people who had no involvement in Christianity at all besides infant baptism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
infant baptism
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
True, but the thing about the Church is that is does not stagnate, its doctrine is not carved in stone, and fully understands a development of dogma, that time and culture must lead to a new understanding and expression to meet the signs of the times. Christianity in general still does attempt to use its power in imposing its morality on those who are not Christian, as we are experiencing it now through our current political nightmare.
Magus
Active Member
Catholics have murdered thousands of babies and children, they don't really care about the well being of children, they just wan't people to use there Catholic facilities and pay the Tithe.
Babies-Children were not supposed to be ritually baptised either, you do realise Jesus was baptised when he was an 'Adult' , even Flavius Josephus was baptised as an Adult, WHY ?
Here is a quote from Flavius.
J. Vit. 2
Bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity
Why then are Babies-children baptised? So they can take off there clothes? Lure them into their dungeons?
Babies-Children were not supposed to be ritually baptised either, you do realise Jesus was baptised when he was an 'Adult' , even Flavius Josephus was baptised as an Adult, WHY ?
Here is a quote from Flavius.
J. Vit. 2
Bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity
Why then are Babies-children baptised? So they can take off there clothes? Lure them into their dungeons?
Last edited:
The idea that all baptized people are Christians - and are subject to all the requirements of being a Christian - is still current doctrine.
The only times that churches of the Christian establishment have yielded power or authority is when they were forced to do so by external forces.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Everyone in one household also spoke in tongues and another household were spoken to by Paul and Silas in the middle of the night before being baptized. Not a very strong defense for infant baptism in the scriptures.
Last edited:
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Yep.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.
Deuteronomy 6:5-9 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. [6] These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. [7] You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. [8] You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. [9] You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
As long as what they teach is of God, it should be done.
Quoting bible verses to me doesn't really help much. You may have noticed that I am not a Christian. I don't follow any of this stuff. Go ahead and be a Christian all you want, but things are different when you start pushing it on others.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
I'm not pushing it on you, I'm just replying, since you posed the statement. In Judaism and in Christianity it is expected and seen as a good thing. Of course some teach as it is meant to be taught, with love and good examples. The children who later get turned off, are more often than not, not given these.
I never said you were pushing it on me, so sorry if I didn't communicate that well. What I meant was that many parents push their religious beliefs on their children, as my parents did with me. Now I am not saying that dipping a baby in water is some sort of big issue, but the life that follows usually is. So sure, give your baby their church bath. Just let them make their own decisions as they grow older. If you are already giving your children this kind of free rein on their beliefs, I am not aiming my criticisms at you.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Sorry for misunderstanding. Thank you for clarifying. I agree that the life that follows is a big issue. I'm sorry to hear that you felt your parents pushed their religious beliefs on you. I don't have children yet, but in my experience, those parents I know who have raised their children according to the scriptures, their children have not felt pushed and have followed in the faith by their own choice.
I agree that along with love and a good example, parents should give their children good information.
Last edited:
syo
Well-Known Member
I mean if it is correct.
"Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
"Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe
The Greek word brephe means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior."
Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision.
If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
He refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
I don't see how the notion of being correct applies here. Is this like asking if the capital of the United States should be Washington D.C.? Why not have the capital be Philadelphia instead? The "correct" answer is Washington D.C., but only because we've already agreed to make Washington D.C. the capital.
So asking if infant baptism is "correct" is a bit strange isn't it? Hasn't the believer already decided that it is "correct"? And hasn't the non-believer already decided that it is not "correct"? Or do you mean correct according to scripture or a particular religious authority? As in... if you are a Christian, then you should do Y at X location at Z time?
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Matt. 19:14 & Luke 18:15-16. This is actually a case against infant baptism. The kingdom already belongs to them. So why get them baptized?
Yes, the parents made the decision for their children to be touched and blessed by Jesus. It never says the parents had such young children be baptized.
The getting saved method of accepting Jesus as one's personal savior isn't in the Bible either.
Paul never chose circumcision as a parallel for baptism. The circumcision of Christ he compared to baptism was not done by hands.
Colossians 2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,
Paul never once associated physical circumcision to water baptism in Jesus name. Paul mentions over and over that the individual's faith is involved in getting saved Romans 10:9-10 Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 2:8-10. Paul would not have baptized anyone without faith in Christ Acts 19:1-5.
Your argument falls completely apart. If something is not directly found in the Bible, it proves itself in a variety of ways, that it does not belong there. This applies both to the getting saved method of accepting Jesus as one's personal Savior and infant baptism.
syo
Well-Known Member
baptism is making someone christian. infants don't have a choice since they are too young. so the parents decide for them and raise them as christians. is it correct?
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Parent's have the right to raise their children how they see fit. It is neither "correct" nor "incorrect".
Parents are a package deal. You can nitpick that they should've done things differently, but if the parents are doing the best they can for their children, then it's silly to get rid of them just because they are feeding their children cookies before bedtime (@ parents, why on Earth would you do that?!?).
So you can argue that the children should "decide" when they are "old enough" what sorts of religious beliefs they hold, but it's actually a bit silly to get upset about infant baptism, imo. If you don't believe in it, then don't baptize your infants. I think you have to make a legitimate case that infant baptism harms the child if you want to say that it is "incorrect". I don't need to waste my time worrying over parents that are losing sleep because their children died before receiving baptism (and so now they are wondering if the child was "saved"). Ugh.
So that's my take. Parents are a package deal. Maybe it's better to let children grow up and decide about the baptism themselves (IMO, probably better for the child), but this is definitely not a 2+2=4 sort of question where you say a particular answer is "correct". Gray areas do exist.