infant baptism

[robocop (actually)]

Pretty sure your Bishop will advise against this.

Personal accountability is key for members, and I would want to do this. It's a sin to not teach the doctrine, and I don't think I can teach things without teaching about opposites you see.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Pretty sure your Bishop will advise against this.

I know it seems wrong to you, but I feel I have received personal revelation that I could do this. I would be happy to consult with my Bishop. But this is for my family and I am not receiving revelation for any other family.

 

[EverChanging]

Why can't the child understand it?

It is a sin for the parents if they do not lead or if they mislead in any way particularly about Jesus Christ and also about the doctrine of the Church. They should explain, allow dissension, make sure the child knows he will still be loved and cared for if he rejects, and the child needs to understand. Calculus and the gospel of Jesus Christ are not the same thing. An eight-year old can understand all the inner-workings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sure they probably just "feel like getting baptized", but why is that worse than any other religions when they have a Bishop certify that they are worthy and understand their baptism, and why isn't it better than birth where the child doesn't participate at all?

At eight years old the children are accountable before God. That's something Latter-day Saints believe. LDS parents believe that God created it that way. If it is right or wrong, well, that has to do with the LDS Church being right or wrong.

I don't think you're understanding my point at all.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Pretty sure your Bishop will advise against this.

By the way, I would not expose them to anti-Christ religions or groups (groups that self-identified that way or that I felt strongly against in this regard)... I would explain these to them myself.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I don't think you're understanding my point at all.

Sorry. I believe what I said though.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I don't think you're understanding my point at all.

Just to avoid confusion when I said "Sorry. I believe it though" I did not mean that I believed I was wrong but that I believe in what I've posted and I have updated this post.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Then why not baptize them? By indoctrinating a child before they have developed a strong critical faculty you're already choosing what they believe anyway. They don't yet have the ability to resist your beliefs. I wouldn't go that far in indoctrination myself. I support a healthy skepticism and the validity of non-literal and poetic interpretations of religious doctrine. In a sense, though I would support infant baptism, you are removing choice more than I would by heavily ingraining doctrine into a child who has no faculty to resist.

I'm not following why it's okay to make choices about a child's beliefs by indoctrinating them before they have the ability to critically reject what they're being taught, but infant baptism is not okay.

Parenting = indoctrinating.

Every single person indoctrinates children to ALL sorts of things. That's just the nature of parenting: engraving all sots of behaviors, values, and beliefs from the minute they are born.
People only complain about this when they happen to disagree with something that's being taught. But no complaints at all when they agree with what's being taught.

 

[EverChanging]

Parenting = indoctrinating.

Every single person indoctrinates children to ALL sorts of things. That's just the nature of parenting: engraving all sots of behaviors, values, and beliefs from the minute they are born.
People only complain about this when they happen to disagree with something that's being taught. But no complaints at all when they agree with what's being taught.

I never said some amount of indoctrination is not acceptable within reason. What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to essentially choose a young child's beliefs but forbid their baptism in infancy due to said infant's right to a choice in the matter.

 

[Katzpur]

I never said some amount of indoctrination is not acceptable within reason. What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to essentially choose a young child's beliefs but forbid their baptism in infancy due to said infant's right to a choice in the matter.

The bottom line is that baptism does not equal conversion. Without belief, all baptism is accomplishing is getting someone wet

 

[EverChanging]

The bottom line is that baptism does not equal conversion. Without belief, all baptism is accomplishing is getting someone wet

We just see things differently. We continue the ancient tradition of infant baptism as a grafting into the Christian covenant just as infant Jews are still circumcised as a sign of the covenant they are born into.

 

[Jane.Doe]

I never said some amount of indoctrination is not acceptable within reason.

I find that what counts as "within reason" is very dependent on the person.

What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to essentially choose a young child's beliefs but forbid their baptism in infancy due to said infant's right to a choice in the matter.

Even those beliefs systems which do baptize as infants do not equate it to conversion and usually have some formal acceptance event later on in life.

(Note: I am not a supporter infant baptism, but am acknowledging what those belief for those that hold them).

 

[EverChanging]

I find that what counts as "within reason" is very dependent on the person.

Even those beliefs systems which do baptize as infants do not equate it to conversion and usually have some formal acceptance event later on in life.

(Note: I am not a supporter infant baptism, but am acknowledging what those belief for those that hold them).

Within reason for me would mean that especially in regard to religious beliefs a child in my care would be given the tools to come to their own conclusions as the critical faculty develops, and they would be given access to points of views from believers and skeptics alike.

The word conversion is used in different senses. In the Episcopal tradition we do view baptism as an incorporation into the Church. We see no reason to deny an infant entry into the church family, nor is there any reason for them not to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion. We also never rebaptize. If someone needs to renew their baptism there are rituals for that, primarily confession and the sacrament of Holy Communion, but a ceremony with holy water can also be used, confirmation can be received once, and reaffirmation can be done many times.

When a child baptized in infancy in the Episcopal Church wishes to be confirmed in our tradition this is NOT an acceptance into the Church, but an acknowledgement that the child has already been welcomed into the church since baptism. Confirmation can be used to accept someone into our particular denomination, but a person is received into the church catholic from baptism.

Conversion is seen as a lifelong process. We are constantly converted, constantly renewed, ever striving to progress in sanctification. As I've heard more than one priest say, "Yes I've been saved. And I've been saved again. And again. And again..."

 

[Katzpur]

We just see things differently. We continue the ancient tradition of infant baptism as a grafting into the Christian covenant just as infant Jews are still circumcised as a sign of the covenant they are born into.

Fair enough, but the Bible refers to baptism as "baptism for the remission of sins" and almost every time it is mentioned, repentance is also mentioned. What sins do you believe a newborn is guilty of?

 

[EverChanging]

Fair enough, but the Bible refers to baptism as "baptism for the remission of sins" and almost every time it is mentioned, repentance is also mentioned. What sins do you believe a newborn is guilty of?

Different Episcopalians will have different perspectives on this matter, but in the creed we do recite that there is "one baptism for the remission of sins." This is not only for past sins, but for the sins of the whole lifetime. This doesn't mean that one is given a free pass to do whatever one wants because the sins are already forgiven, but that when one falls into sin one may renew not only one's baptismal vows, but the graces and promises that God makes to us in baptism. Because an infant will likely sin in their lifetime their baptism is no less for the remission of sins than anyone else's.

Now some infants (such as those likely to die) may not have a chance to sin. Nevertheless we believe there are other graces in baptism such as incorporating the child into the church. In our understanding we see no reason we should not incorporate them into the covenant with God -- this itself is a grace apart from anything else.

We don't exclude children from the covenant, nor the severely mentally disabled for that matter. They, too, may receive baptism and Holy Communion.

This post is a pretty informative view of how many Episcopalians would view infant baptism:

Infant Baptism: What the Church Believes | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

 

[Katzpur]

Different Episcopalians will have different perspectives on this matter, but in the creed we do recite that there is "one baptism for the remission of sins." This is not only for past sins, but for the sins of the whole lifetime. This doesn't mean that one is given a free pass to do whatever one wants because the sins are already forgiven, but that when one falls into sin one may renew not only one's baptismal vows, but the graces and promises that God makes to us in baptism. Because an infant will likely sin in their lifetime their baptism is no less for the remission of sins than anyone else's.

Now some infants (such as those likely to die) may not have a chance to sin. Nevertheless we believe there are other graces in baptism such as incorporating the child into the church. In our understanding we see no reason we should not incorporate them into the covenant with God -- this itself is a grace apart from anything else.

We don't exclude children from the covenant, nor the severely mentally disabled for that matter. They, too, may receive baptism and Holy Communion.

This post is a pretty informative view of how many Episcopalians would view infant baptism:

Infant Baptism: What the Church Believes | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

How come Episcopalians are always so civil and easy to get along with?

 

[EverChanging]

How come Episcopalians are always so civil and easy to get along with?

It must be our English roots!

On a more serious note the Mormons I've interacted with have always been very kind and polite, and I've enjoyed learning about the LDS Church from them.

 

[Watchmen]

Fair enough, but the Bible refers to baptism as "baptism for the remission of sins" and almost every time it is mentioned, repentance is also mentioned. What sins do you believe a newborn is guilty of?

Original sin.

 

[Jane.Doe]

How come Episcopalians are always so civil and easy to get along with?

I totally second this comment.
@EverChanging , thank you for a wonderfully civil and Christ-like dialogue.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I don't think you're understanding my point at all.

I was just reading in "Comparative Religions for Dummies." It said, "The debate over whether baptism is for babies or for anyone (referring to our discussion), however, led to bloody battles in the Middle Ages."
So I see that it's a hot issue!

I just think you don't need to be a Harvard professor of Comparative religion to gain a basic perspective of right from wrong.

 

[EverChanging]

I was just reading in "Comparative Religions for Dummies." It said, "The debate over whether baptism is for babies or for anyone (referring to our discussion), however, led to bloody battles in the Middle Ages."
So I see that it's a hot issue!

Very interesting!

I just think you don't need to be a Harvard professor of Comparative religion to gain a basic perspective of right from wrong.

I don't either.