• 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

pearl

Well-Known Member
There is a very strong pattern of language in Scripture


It is a pattern clearly followed by the NT authors.

The point is not that infants were baptized in the New Testament, but that whole households were baptized. There are specific references to household baptisms in the New Testament. See Acts 10; 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16 (a text which indicates that household baptisms were the norm in the apostolic age). Certainly in the missionary context of Acts, there had to be faith in new converts to Christianity before they could receive the sign and seal of Christian baptism (in the same way that Abraham received the sign and seal of circumcision only after he believed the promises of God, Rom. 4:11-12). But even as whole families were received as part of the covenant people in all previous ages, so that pattern continues in the New Testament. If, in fact, this household principle was abrogated in the new covenant, one would not expect the household formula to be used as it is in the New Testament.

2. It is not the case that the New Testament always speaks of a person believing before he or she is baptized. Lydia is baptized with her household, but there is no mention of each member of that household exercising faith prior to baptism (Acts 16:14-15). And in the case of the Philippian jailer and his family, the text clearly speaks only of the faith of the jailer himself. Acts 16:34b literally reads, "And he rejoiced with all his household, he having believed in God." If the discontinuity of the new covenant is that only those who personally repent and believe in Christ are to be baptized and received as part of the church, why is that not clearly indicated in a text like this?

https://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=545
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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?
That's assuming that God is-- and I'm not going there.

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.
"Indoctrination" is gonna happen if the child is brought up in any religion, and with "believer's baptism", the "indoctrination" started prior to that ritual.

But while I'm at it, "baptism" is a ritual of formal introduction into the church, has its roots in the mikvah, which does much the same thing theologically, and the mikvah was an application of a priestly washing that eventually was extended to all Jews. It's a ritual that implies one is starting anew, and the age really doesn't make much of a difference one way or the other since the parents make a commitment to bring the baby up in the faith.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Not from a Catholic perspective.
I specifically had the Catholic perspective in mind when I wrote that.

The Church simply did not know,
Hence the word "might" in my post.

that's was the reason for the idea of 'limbo', which was neither heaven, hell, or purgatory.
Limbo was never doctrine, and has now been rejected by the Catholic Church.

They had no answer for an infant who died while not baptized.
Right: while they certainly didn't claim that unbaptized babies must end up in Hell, they made a point of not excluding the possibility.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That's assuming that God is-- and I'm not going there.
It's a common enough assumption in the denominations that practice infant baptism.

"Indoctrination" is gonna happen if the child is brought up in any religion, and with "believer's baptism", the "indoctrination" started prior to that ritual.
Yes. In this respect, any ritual that marks the start of the child's indoctrination is problematic, not just baptism.

But while I'm at it, "baptism" is a ritual of formal introduction into the church, has its roots in the mikvah, which does much the same thing theologically, and the mikvah was an application of a priestly washing that eventually was extended to all Jews. It's a ritual that implies one is starting anew, and the age really doesn't make much of a difference one way or the other since the parents make a commitment to bring the baby up in the faith.
And I question why a baby needs to be introduced to a church at all.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And I question why a baby needs to be introduced to a church at all.
Because the parents believe and want their children to believe as such, much like we all do in one regard or another. Eventually the kids will make up their own mind however, but its nice to have a base to at least start from.

BTW, my wife and I took a bit of a different approach, namely wanting our children to gradually be exposed to other denominations and religions, so we did lots of "visiting" over the decades with them. Now, our oldest daughter and her children are Jewish, our youngest daughter and her kids are Catholic, and my son is secular but his wife is Protestant (Assemblies of God). We go to each others services and celebrations, but we never argue religion.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Limbo was never doctrine, and has now been rejected by the Catholic Church.

Limbo was simply a place for good people who were never baptized. It is 'rejected' through silence, not formally.

Right: while they certainly didn't claim that unbaptized babies must end up in Hell, they made a point of not excluding the possibility.

What is your source for what you put forth as Catholic?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
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.

I can't see how posting verses is 'pushing' but rather sharing information as to what the Bible really teaches.
It does make me wonder if you don't follow, for example, the Golden Rule lifestyle what stuff do you follow.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran 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?

I find at 1 Corinthians 7:14 B that parents are responsible for their 'minor' children.
So, parents would be responsible as to what they teach their children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syo

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
It is a pattern clearly followed by the NT authors.
The point is not that infants were baptized in the New Testament, but that whole households were baptized. There are specific references to household baptisms in the New Testament. See Acts 10; 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16 (a text which indicates that household baptisms were the norm in the apostolic age). Certainly in the missionary context of Acts, there had to be faith in new converts to Christianity before they could receive the sign and seal of Christian baptism (in the same way that Abraham received the sign and seal of circumcision only after he believed the promises of God, Rom. 4:11-12). But even as whole families were received as part of the covenant people in all previous ages, so that pattern continues in the New Testament. If, in fact, this household principle was abrogated in the new covenant, one would not expect the household formula to be used as it is in the New Testament.
2. It is not the case that the New Testament always speaks of a person believing before he or she is baptized. Lydia is baptized with her household, but there is no mention of each member of that household exercising faith prior to baptism (Acts 16:14-15). And in the case of the Philippian jailer and his family, the text clearly speaks only of the faith of the jailer himself. Acts 16:34b literally reads, "And he rejoiced with all his household, he having believed in God." If the discontinuity of the new covenant is that only those who personally repent and believe in Christ are to be baptized and received as part of the church, why is that not clearly indicated in a text like this?

We are a household of ADULTS here, so the ^ above ^ mentioned households could also be ADULT households.
No biblical infant baptism instructed, but personal repentance and dedication before baptism is a requirement.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I can't find any Bible verses about limbo. I can't find any of Jesus' teachings referring to limbo.

Limbo is not a teaching of Jesus. Only those baptized and their sins forgiven were heaven bound through Jesus. But what about the innocent children not old enough to sin? The church's answer was a place that was neither, and called it limbo.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
We are a household of ADULTS here, so the ^ above ^ mentioned households could also be ADULT households.

The 'pattern' clearly stated the exclusion of children if that was the case, otherwise children were included in the 'whole household'.
 

Jesster

Friendly skeptic
Premium Member
I can't see how posting verses is 'pushing' but rather sharing information as to what the Bible really teaches.
It does make me wonder if you don't follow, for example, the Golden Rule lifestyle what stuff do you follow.

That's not what I was trying to say. I've already explained this. Read on.

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.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Limbo is not a teaching of Jesus. Only those baptized and their sins forgiven were heaven bound through Jesus. But what about the innocent children not old enough to sin? The church's answer was a place that was neither, and called it limbo.

According to 1 Corinthians 7:14 parents are held responsible for minor children.
That accounts for the loss of life in Noah's day. Those parents did Not even attempt to put any children on the Ark.
'Just as in Noah's day' is what Jesus' forewarns us at Matthew 24:37.
Often violent parents produce violent children as in Noah's day. in other words, God knows the point in which any children born to such hardened parents will turn out to be like them. Others in Noah's day, simply took no note ( No note of God's standards or morals ) and their children would turn out just like them because they have reached the point of no return in their hardened hearts.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I do believe the argument against infant baptism, especially in light of the historical splitting of the sacrament/ordinance of baptism into both baptism and confirmation, amounts to a hill of beans. Interesting discussion but not anything to lose any sleep over, imo.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Limbo is not a teaching of Jesus. Only those baptized and their sins forgiven were heaven bound through Jesus. But what about the innocent children not old enough to sin? The church's answer was a place that was neither, and called it limbo.

I find as far as innocent children they are covered or protected by the believing parent as 1 Corinthians 7:14 says.
The children of Noah's day were Not counted as innocent. Apparently the parents we so far past the point of repenting that the children would have grown up to be like the un-repenting parents.

I agree only those forgiven and baptised can be heaven bound.
There was No baptism for anyone before Jesus came (John3:13) so none of those pre-Jesus people are heaven bound.
That includes people even like King David mentioned at Acts of the Apostles 2:34 is Not heaven bound.
So, ALL who lived before Jesus' died can have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection back to live life on Earth starting with Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth begins. Resurrected out of death's deep sleep state as Jesus taught at John 11:11-14 which is in harmony with the old Hebrew Scriptures teaching un-conscious sleep in death such as found at Psalms 6:5; Psalms 13:3; Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:4 and Ecclesiastes 9:5.
Faithful parents will have their minor children resurrected back to life with them.

Since Christian baptism is only followed by repenting and dedicating one's self to God, then that is why parents are responsible for minor children until those children are old enough to decide for themselves.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Baptism in faith was the first act of discipleship, not the last. Peter baptized at Pentecost, by households, before any instruction.
 
Top