infant baptism

[e.r.m.]

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.

This is not one of them. If parents are losing sleep because their child is not baptized yet, it's only because they've been conditioned to believe something false to begin with. Jesus said the kingdom belongs to such as these. And all over the Bible it says that baptism is accompanied by faith from the person being baptized.

 

[pearl]

Paul never once associated physical circumcision to water baptism in Jesus name.

There is no objection to infant baptism that Abraham could not have leveled against infant circumcision. (Prof. Robert Strimple)

Why should he put this seal on infants? Infants don't have faith. In what sense is it a seal if it's possible for the recipient to grow up and deny the faith it seals? Why not wait for them to profess their faith and then apply the sign?
If one looks at the many OT passages, passages that speak of houses being blessed or condemned by virtue of the spiritual status of the head of that household, where 'household' is inclusive and compare with those where it was necessary to state children not included, the norm is inclusive of children and infants, "and his house" in the New Testament is clearly borrowed from the Old and meant to cover the same territory.

 

[e.r.m.]

There is no objection to infant baptism that Abraham could not have leveled against infant circumcision. (Prof. Robert Strimple)

Why should he put this seal on infants? Infants don't have faith. In what sense is it a seal if it's possible for the recipient to grow up and deny the faith it seals? Why not wait for them to profess their faith and then apply the sign?
If one looks at the many OT passages, passages that speak of houses being blessed or condemned by virtue of the spiritual status of the head of that household, where 'household' is inclusive and compare with those where it was necessary to state children not included, the norm is inclusive of children and infants, "and his house" in the New Testament is clearly borrowed from the Old and meant to cover the same territory.

All conjecture. If it existed back then, it would have showed up in the scriptures, not between the lines of scripture. Not everything from the Old Testament carried over to the New Covenant, physical circumcision actually being one of them. Another reason not to believe the babies were baptized because of the decision of the head of the household.

 

[pearl]

All conjecture. If it existed back then, it would have showed up in the scriptures, not between the lines of scripture. Not everything from the Old Testament carried over to the New Covenant, physical circumcision actually being one of them. Another reason not to believe the babies were baptized because of the decision of the head of the household.

Scripture requires more than a superficial reading in order to uncover the intent of the author, and patterns of language are one of many tools used in the actual study of Scripture.

 

[metis]

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.

Is that why the CC is the world's largest non-governmental charity in the world? Also, the CC does not require tithing.

Maybe start your education here: Catholic Church - Wikipedia

 

[Sanzbir]

Which are...?

Well documented and common knowledge.

Eight weeks to a better brain
Harvard neuroscientist: Meditation not only reduces stress, here’s how it changes your brain
Prayer takes the edge off, a new study suggests
Watch: Study Shows Startling Images Of Brain Activity While Praying
https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/nzpk9w/how-prayer-and-meditation-changes-your-brain

 

[e.r.m.]

Scripture requires more than a superficial reading in order to uncover the intent of the author, and patterns of language are one of many tools used in the actual study of Scripture.

There is a very strong pattern of language in Scripture, that if a major teaching existed, they spoke explicitly about it. Infant baptism fails this most important pattern of language. Read my threads entitled Exegetical Tool and Another Exegetical Tool.

 

[metis]

We should remember that baptism is essentially an introduction ceremony into the church that includes the family and not just the individual.

Secondly, can one maybe appreciate the concern a parent might have if their child is ill and maybe going to die? At least with the child being baptized, they may get some solace.

Thirdly, doesn't splitting baptism into two sacraments/ordinances (baptism & confirmation) really solve the problem of commitment?

Finally, Acts says that a family was baptized, so I fail to see what the problem is with infant baptism. If one doesn't want to have it done with their children, fine; but others may have a different take.

 

[e.r.m.]

We should remember that baptism is essentially an introduction ceremony into the church that includes the family and not just the individual.

It became that over time, after the beginning. Sure even now a whole family can be baptized at once, but the decisions are still individual. They just decided to be baptized together.

Secondly, can one maybe appreciate the concern a parent might have if their child is ill and maybe going to die? At least with the child being baptized, they may get some solace.

That calls for giving them peace through accurate education of the scriptures, not capitulating and reinforcing a false narrative.

Thirdly, doesn't splitting baptism into two sacraments/ordinances (baptism & confirmation) really solve the problem of commitment?

No, baptism a la Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 solves it. After they have sinned is when forgiveness/salvation is relevant.

Oh yeah, original sin, also not in the Bible.

Finally, Acts says that a family was baptized, so I fail to see what the problem is with infant baptism. If one doesn't want to have it done with their children, fine; but others may have a different take.

That family in Acts 16 was also spoken to in the middle of the night by Paul and Islas before getting baptized. Are you saying if they had babies, the parents woke them up, took them out, and had them listen to Paul and Islas before getting baptize. So sure, you could fail to see what the problem is with just about anything, if you make a casual glance and not look at it too closely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a very strong pattern of language in Scripture, that if a major teaching existed, they spoke explicitly about it. Infant baptism fails this most important pattern of language. Read my threads entitled Exegetical Tool and Another Exegetical Tool.

So then... with no scriptures explicitly in favour of infant baptism and none explicitly opposing it, the early church was ambivalent about infant baptism?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Secondly, can one maybe appreciate the concern a parent might have if their child is ill and maybe going to die? At least with the child being baptized, they may get some solace.

That concern is rooted in the idea that God might do horrible things to their child after death. Isn't there enough solace in having faith that God is loving and merciful?

Thirdly, doesn't splitting baptism into two sacraments/ordinances (baptism & confirmation) really solve the problem of commitment?

No, because of your first point. Baptism really serves as the point when indoctrination begins.

And I question how free or well-thought-out the commitment is from a kid at the typical age of confirmation.

 

[e.r.m.]

So then... with no scriptures explicitly in favour of infant baptism and none explicitly opposing it, the early church was ambivalent about infant baptism?

How can you name something (infant baptism) in scripture that wasn't even thought of yet?

Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, along with all other scriptures requiring faith from the individual to be saved, directly oppose any baptism devoid of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can you name something (infant baptism) in scripture that wasn't even thought of yet?

Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, along with all other scriptures requiring faith from the individual to be saved, directly oppose any baptism devoid of it.

- what dates are you using for the start of infant baptism and the authorship of the books of the Bible?

- even if infant baptism came later, if you're saying that the authors of the Bible were incapable of foreseeing infant baptism, then you seem to be implying that none of the Bible was inspired by God.

Edit: those two passages don't actually say what you're claiming they do.

 

[e.r.m.]

That concern is rooted in the idea that God might do horrible things to their child after death. Isn't there enough solace in having faith that God is loving and merciful?

Agreed.

No, because of your first point. Baptism really serves as the point when indoctrination begins.

Actually, they should be made disciples before they're baptized Matthew 28:19.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, they should be made disciples before they're baptized Matthew 28:19.

Matthew 28:19 talks about "baptizing nations;" every nation I'm familiar with has babies.

It also doesn't say anything about people having to accept the teaching before baptism.

It seems to me that he's describing preaching to a whole big mass of people and then baptizing everyone in it.

 

[e.r.m.]

- what dates are you using for the start of infant baptism

Some time after A.D. 130, about the time Justin Martyr was converted and about which he wrote:
And for [water baptism] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed. (Justin, First Apology 61)

and the authorship of the books of the Bible?

Some time before 100 A.D., when the apostle John died.

- even if infant baptism came later, if you're saying that the authors of the Bible were incapable of foreseeing infant baptism, then you seem to be implying that none of the Bible was inspired by God.

How's that? I don't see the connection.

Edit: those two passages don't actually say what you're claiming they do.

They say what they say.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some time after A.D. 130, about the time Justin Martyr was converted and about which he wrote:
And for [water baptism] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed. (Justin, First Apology 61)

Some time before 100 A.D., when the apostle John died.

Early Christian Writings puts the range for Acts at 80-130 AD, which overlaps with the date you gave for when infant baptism was documented (which suggests thatvthe practice started earlier).

Other books of the Bible are given even later datings:

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

How's that? I don't see the connection.

It's understandable that a person wouldn't have anticipated infant baptism if they hadn't heard of it.

It's not understandable that God wouldn't have anticipated it.

They say what they say.

And here's what they say:

Mark 16:16:
"The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned."

It doesn't say anything about people who are baptized and don't believe. In fact, the way it explicitly mentions belief and baptism as separate requirements suggests that the author didn't expect one to necessarily come with the other as a package.

Acts 2:38:
"Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Sounds like the recounting of a specific event. Nothing in it suggests that it's meant to suggest a general rule at all. It certainly says nothing about a general rule forbidding infant baptism; that seems to be coming just from your imagination.

 

[metis]

It became that over time, after the beginning. Sure even now a whole family can be baptized at once, but the decisions are still individual. They just decided to be baptized together.

That calls for giving them peace through accurate education of the scriptures, not capitulating and reinforcing a false narrative.

No, baptism a la Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 solves it. After they have sinned is when forgiveness/salvation is relevant.

Oh yeah, original sin, also not in the Bible.

That family in Acts 16 was also spoken to in the middle of the night by Paul and Islas before getting baptized. Are you saying if they had babies, the parents woke them up, took them out, and had them listen to Paul and Islas before getting baptize. So sure, you could fail to see what the problem is with just about anything, if you make a casual glance and not look at it too closely.

See my response #148 under the "Why Did God Tempt Adam and Eve?" thread, and also check out some of my other responses just before that one.

 

[Magus]

Is that why the CC is the world's largest non-governmental charity in the world? Also, the CC does not require tithing.

Maybe start your education here: Catholic Church - Wikipedia

Start your Catholic education here
Hundreds of Scottish orphanage children allegedly buried in mass grave
Unmarked mass grave for children found at old Catholic orphanage in Ireland
Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia
Nazism - Wikipedia
Black Death - Wikipedia

 

[pearl]

That concern is rooted in the idea that God might do horrible things to their child after death.

Not from a Catholic perspective. The Church simply did not know, that's was the reason for the idea of 'limbo', which was neither heaven, hell, or purgatory. They had no answer for an infant who died while not baptized.