• 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

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The bottom line is that baptism does not equal conversion. Without belief, all baptism is accomplishing is getting someone wet
That might be true if you believe in the Mormon version of baptism. I’m sure Catholics believe infant baptism does much more than “get someone wet.”
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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?
 

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
Original sin?

I should mention that some Anglicans subscribe to this notion and it is in the thirty nine articles. There are more Catholic and Protestant interpretations of it within Anglicanism. But some do not subscribe to it and take a more eastern view akin to the Orthodox. The article I linked since it comes from an Orthodox position will not include original sin as a reason for infant baptism.

At least one Catholic I know actually sees the fall as a good thing, a part of the divine plan. One Catholic hymn references the fall with the phrase, "O happy fault!"
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
That might be true if you believe in the Mormon version of baptism. I’m sure Catholics believe infant baptism does much more than “get someone wet.”
It would appear then, that the Church has more power than God himself.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Not sure what you mean, but that’s certainly not what I was suggesting.
Okay, what I mean is that, without faith in Christ and repentance, baptism has no meaning. That's why, as you know, we say that proxy baptisms for the dead are only considered legitimate in God's eyes if the deceased accepts the ordinance. If, however, a person is baptized as a Catholic when still an infant, the Catholic Church's belief is that he is forever more a Catholic -- in the eyes of the Church and in the eyes of God, even if he should categorically reject the Church later on and even ask that his name be removed from the Church's records. God may know this individual's heart and may know that the he has no wish to be considered Catholic, but the baptism (according to the Catholic Church) effectively locks the person into Catholicism forever. That's why I say that such a baptism would trump the person's freedom to choose as well as God's will.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Okay, what I mean is that, without faith in Christ and repentance, baptism has no meaning. That's why, as you know, we say that proxy baptisms for the dead are only considered legitimate in God's eyes if the deceased accepts the ordinance. If, however, a person is baptized as a Catholic when still an infant, the Catholic Church's belief is that he is forever more a Catholic -- in the eyes of the Church and in the eyes of God, even if he should categorically reject the Church later on and even ask that his name be removed from the Church's records. God may know this individual's heart and may know that the he has no wish to be considered Catholic, but the baptism (according to the Catholic Church) effectively locks the person into Catholicism forever. That's why I say that such a baptism would trump the person's freedom to choose as well as God's will.
How is that any different from the LDS Church? Those who leave or are excommunicated are still counted.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
How is that any different from the LDS Church? Those who leave or are excommunicated are still counted.
Those who are excommunicated or ask to have their membership records removed are not "still counted." If they were to ever want to return, they'd have to be baptized a second time. People like you, who have not asked to have their records removed, are "still counted." But as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic."
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How is that any different from the LDS Church? Those who leave or are excommunicated are still counted.
They keep the record, but they mark on it that the person left. I know because after I became Raelian some missionaries found me and told me my name had been removed. I was very grateful.
Also, just recently (I haven't been a member for even two months), someone asked me if they would like me to have them check if I was on the rolls, and I said I did, and they said I was not on the records, and I was very grateful.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Those who are excommunicated or ask to have their membership records removed are not "still counted." If they were to ever want to return, they'd have to be baptized a second time. People like you, who have not asked to have their records removed, are "still counted." But as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic."
But the person who is ex communicated is “still counted” when they announce membership numbers. So are dead people but I understand why.
 

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
As a matter of fact, it is a long-standing principle of psychology that we develop attributes at any specific age. Pornography temptation comes at puberty and sometimes earlier.

My point is that none of that had anything to do with the points I made regarding infant baptism in my tradition.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
They keep the record, but they mark on it that the person left. I know because after I became Raelian some missionaries found me and told me my name had been removed. I was very grateful.
Also, just recently (I haven't been a member for even two months), someone asked me if they would like me to have them check if I was on the rolls, and I said I did, and they said I was not on the records, and I was very grateful.
You may not have been in the rolls of your ward, but you were among the 15M+ announced during Genera Conference.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Then why not baptize them?
Because I believe that, based on what they are psychologically capable of understanding, they are ready to make the covenant consciously, responsibly and understandingly.
By indoctrinating a child before they have developed a strong critical faculty you're already choosing what they believe anyway.
A critical faculty to know that there is right from wrong?
They don't yet have the ability to resist your beliefs.
My parents always taught me that if they did something wrong it was alright if I went against them. I took advantage of this and was basically a Raelian for 10 years. And anyway that's OK if they can't resist your beliefs yet. Children are born innocent but not trained. To be good, a child must be trained. So that is what is supposed to happen.
I wouldn't go that far in indoctrination myself.
I refused to go on a mission at 19 because I was afraid the MTC would simply brain-wash me out of control. You could do what you want, but moral behavior is important and the person will learn it some day, from you or from the world.
I support a healthy skepticism and the validity of non-literal and poetic interpretations of religious doctrine.
And I want to teach the child Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Eastern religions. The only requisite is that the parents have the sin on their own heads if they don't teach the doctrine in a natural way. (I put natural way; I think that is correct).
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.
Removing choice yes. Removing right choice, not as much!
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
But the person who is ex communicated is “still counted” when they announce membership numbers. So are dead people but I understand why.
Well, it depends upon how long they've been dead. I think they automatically delete them when they'd turn 105 or something like that if they don't know for sure that they died younger.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Adult baptism was by and large the original norm but we also know from Acts that sometimes entire families were baptized. What ended up pushing infant baptism was during one of the plagues that killed an estimated 1/3 of Europe's children, whereas parents were worried about what would happen with them if they died before baptism because it says in Mark that one must believe and be baptized to be saved.

What the Church did was to allow for infant baptism by splitting the sacrament into two: baptism and confirmation. With adult baptism, they were done and are still done together.
 

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
Adult baptism was by and large the original norm but we also know from Acts that sometimes entire families were baptized. What ended up pushing infant baptism was during one of the plagues that killed an estimated 1/3 of Europe's children, whereas parents were worried about what would happen with them if they died before baptism because it says in Mark that one must believe and be baptized to be saved.

What the Church did was to allow for infant baptism by splitting the sacrament into two: baptism and confirmation. With adult baptism, they were done and are still done together.

The West split it into two. The East continues to this day to baptize, chrismate, and commune infants. The Episcopal Church also restored infant communion.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The West split it into two. The East continues to this day to baptize, chrismate, and commune infants. The Episcopal Church also restored infant communion.
But the Anglican Church still does celebrate confirmation, so how is that now done?
 

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
But the Anglican Church still does celebrate confirmation, so how is that now done?

We still confirm at an age of discretion, but confirmation is not required for communion. The Orthodox don't really think in terms of confirmation. They simply chrismate. We also chrismate at baptism in the Episcopal Church.
 
Top