infant baptism

[pearl]

Baotism is certainly taken as a commitment.

Not infant baptism which simply includes the infant in membership in the Church which is only gained through baptism in Christ.

... or regardless of whether they even set foot in a church. Only Christians were subject to the Inquisition, but it was oft3n the case that a housekeeper or whatnot would come forward to claim that she secretly baptized some prominent member of the local Jewish community, which would put him under the authority of the Inquisition and guilty of the "sin" of "Judaizing."

Has nothing to do with infant baptism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not infant baptism which simply includes the infant in membership in the Church which is only gained through baptism in Christ.

The Church takes it as an irrevocable commitment from the person being baptized: from that point forward, in their eyes, the baptized person is a Christian no matter what.

He may become a Christian out of communion with the Church, or a hellbound Christian, but still a Christian.

Has nothing to do with infant baptism.

It has everything to do with infant baptism.

 

[metis]

should infants of believers be baptised?

I think it's optional for parents, but we do know it was done at least early in the 2nd century even though adult baptism was the norm. In Acts, it says that an entire family was baptized, but we don;t know what their ages were. When the plagues hit Europe, parents more began to move towards infant baptism in case it might help with their children being judged, so the sacrament was split into two: baptism and confirmation, with the latter to be done later.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it's optional for parents, but we do know it was done at least early in the 2nd century even though adult baptism was the norm. In Acts, it says that an entire family was baptized, but we don;t know what their ages were. When the plagues hit Europe, parents more began to move towards infant baptism in case it might help with their children being judged, so the sacrament was split into two: baptism and confirmation, with the latter to be done later.

So infant baptism fell out of favour sometime between the 2nd century and those plagues?

 

[Profound Realization]

should infants of believers be baptised? I think, yes, because believers want the best for their children, and religion is important in their beliefs. what do you think?

If believers in a particular hobby want to go through the hobby of getting their infant wet with water, what would be wrong with that? They also give them baths, I'm hoping.

It would seem more plausible in my perception that infants are already naturally "baptized," that they'd already be pure and clean within. Then the world, ego, etc. kick in separating them from their once inner purity and cleanliness.

 

[Father Heathen]

should infants of believers be baptised? I think, yes, because believers want the best for their children, and religion is important in their beliefs. what do you think?

Soaked babies get saved. Dry babies burn in the fires of hell.

 

[Mark Dohle]

should infants of believers be baptised? I think, yes, because believers want the best for their children, and religion is important in their beliefs. what do you think?

I would say yes. However, the parents stand in proxy for the child, so in order for their faith to grow and mature, the parents need to take that responsibility seriously. that goes for God Parents as well. Today it is more like a rights of passage event for many, so it sacrmental deminision is often forgotten.

When the child is an adult, if the parents taught and lived out their faith in a mture manner, then the children 'might' stay in that faith.

Peace
Mark

 

[metis]

So infant baptism fell out of favour sometime between the 2nd century and those plagues?

No, it wasn't the norm until the third century, although some bishops opposed it as a general practice. It was hotly debated during the 2nd century, especially the latter half of it.

 

[Mark Dohle]

No, it wasn't the norm until the third century, although some bishops opposed it as a general practice. It was hotly debated during the 2nd century, especially the latter half of it.

There were a lot of squabbles in the early church, this being one of them.

peace
mark

 

[metis]

There were a lot of squabbles in the early church, this being one of them

Which in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. It is through these squabbles that quite possibly the best decisions can be made.

Reminds me of a true story. Gandhi was leaving his ashram for several weeks while traveling to England, so he appointed a man to head the group whom he periodically quarreled with. When some in the ashram protested as to why he would choose someone like him, Gandhi's response was that while he was gone he needed a leader to take charge, not a follower.

 

[pearl]

So infant baptism fell out of favour sometime between the 2nd century and those plagues?

Tertullian was opposed to infant baptism, parents were permitted to delay the christening of their children. By the fourth cent some waited to receive baptism on their death bed. Life then could be spent with less restrictions. Before death they could be baptized without the possibility of sin before death, in their 'baptismal innocence.'

 

[syo]

some waited to receive baptism on their death bed

like Constantine the great. he was baptised before he was dead.

 

[metis]

By the fourth cent some waited to receive baptism on their death bed. Life then could be spent with less restrictions. Before death they could be baptized without the possibility of sin before death, in their 'baptismal innocence.'

Yep, and Constantine was one of 'em.

And, as you're undoubtedly aware of, any major sin committed after one was baptized was met with their removal, so then they would have to publicly confess their sins and the bishop would then decide the period of time for their penance if they wished to rejoin-- assuming that the bishop would even allow them to return to the congregation.

 

[metis]

like Constantine the great. he was baptised before he was dead.

Shucks, ya beat me to da punch.

 

[pearl]

so the sacrament was split into two: baptism and confirmation, with the latter to be done later.

Its interesting that in the Eastern Orthodox the infant receives baptism, Eucharist and confirmation at the same time. In the Roman church these are separated by years or readiness into three sacraments of initiation, Baptism, Eucharist and the final commitment, Confirmation.

 

[pearl]

And, as you're undoubtedly aware of, any major sin committed after one was baptized was met with their removal, so then they would have to publicly confess their sins and the bishop would then decide the period of time for their penance if they wished to rejoin-- assuming that the bishop would even allow them to return to the congregation.

True. Public confession was extremely harsh and could last for years. It was finally ended with the Cluniac reform.

 

[pearl]

It has everything to do with infant baptism.

Under discussion was the 'commitment' one must make at baptism. The infant makes no conscious commitment.

 

[metis]

Under discussion was the 'commitment' one must make at baptism. The infant makes no conscious commitment.

Which is why it was separated into two sacraments, baptism and confirmation, as you well know.

 

[Ponder This]

should infants of believers be baptised? I think, yes, because believers want the best for their children, and religion is important in their beliefs. what do you think?

I don't understand the question. What do you mean "should"?
Is there some sort of moral quandary taking place?
Isn't this a bit like saying a person should get up at 7am?
Does that mean he shouldn't get up at 6:45am or 7:05am?
How exactly is baptism of infants a question of "should" other than as a social expectation of what is normal?

 

[Mark Dohle]

Which in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. It is through these squabbles that quite possibly the best decisions can be made.

Reminds me of a true story. Gandhi was leaving his ashram for several weeks while traveling to England, so he appointed a man to head the group whom he periodically quarreled with. When some in the ashram protested as to why he would choose someone like him, Gandhi's response was that while he was gone he needed a leader to take charge, not a follower.

Yes of course, the Trinity being the big one ;-).

Peace
mark