Infant Baptism

[ForgivenAcceptedPure]

k, i don't know if there is any threads on this already, and if there is, somebody can delete it or let me know, but i want to know others views on infant baptism. Maybe this isn't a great thing to discuse, i know it is kinda a touchy subject, but i would like to know other peoples views.

[Aslan's Son]

Whilst I have no problem with the baptism of infants, I don't truly see any necessity for it. I've heard that some churches (not sure which ones) believe that if a baby's not baptised, then the baby is condemned to Hell or something like that. While we're all born with a sinful nature, infants aren't responsible for what they do because they aren't yet accountable (can't distinguish between right and wrong) for their actions. In all, I believe it's just not necessary, though I've got no problem with it.

[ForgivenAcceptedPure]

ya, that is what i think to. but some parents believe that is the child is baptised as an infant, then they are baptised. i believe baptism is upon ur confession of faith that you are baptised, not that as a child your parents make the decision for you. i think that is ok when it is used as a dedication, but not as that being the child showing that they are christians

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

I think that infant baptism is just as true as any other baptism. It's no mistake that in almost every sacrament (first communion, confirmation) you re-say your baptisimal vows. I think infant baptism is a good way to start. Confirmation confirms your Christianity.

[SlpNarniaQueen]

I don't really see the point, I beleive, I don't know what my church believes, but I as a person with my own veiw beleive that if a baby dies they go to heaven, because they have no choice, they don't understand anything yet. Anyway, I believe it is okay, but I think that as the childeren get older they should be able to decide what they want to be by thier own thoughts and feelings instead of bound to one way of Christianity or reliegon by baptisim, unless they themselves choose to be baptized, because then they really wouldn't be searving God anyway, they'd be serving their parents.

[Solya]

I was baptised as an infant, but don't regret the decision my parents made for me. :) Baptism shows that your parents are willing to raise you as a Christian and that they trust in God to take care of you as well. I don't see baptism as the ultimate binding factor to Christianity, though, but I see it as a beginning of faith instead.

In my church, we were asked again at the age of 11/12 if we wanted to continue life as a Christian and receive the sacrament that belonged with it. I accepted this too, because I trust in God to guide me through my life. This was my true binding and I don't have any regrets about this one either. It feels right somehow to belong to this religion in such a way. Even though I'm not a Christian in the strictest sense of the word now, I still see the value of my Christian foundation and upbringing a lot and that's why I also chose to have my first communion and my confirmation.

[Ephinie]

I see no problem with infant baptism. Whether you are baptized as an infant or as an older person, you still have to make the choice to serve Christ on your own. Baptism does not save you, Jesus does. The reason we do it at all is because Jesus said to, but he never said that it had to happen at a specific age.

If I remember things correctly, when people converted in the New Testament, they were told to repent and be baptized. There were several instances where a family accepted Christ together, and they were all baptized. Of course, given the cultural surroundings, it is possible that in many cases the father accepted Christ while the wife or one or more of the children did not. It seems like they were still baptized, though. I'm thinking of the incident when Paul converted the jailer after the earthquake specifically. The man made the decision that his family would follow Christ right there - without any input from the rest of the family. Each individual had to accept or reject Christ on his or her own, regardless of being baptized. Okay, so following this logic... it makes sense to me that if you have a family that has accepted Christ and they all get baptized together, they would have a new baby baptized as soon as it was born.

As I am sure most of us are aware, most Protestant demoninations condemn infant baptism. They feel that baptism is something special that should only be done when the person being baptized understands the significance of it. This view also has merit, I think. Either way, however, baptism does not save you. I am not sure WHY Christ instructed us to do it, only that he did. He never said that you had to be a certain age or that it had to co-incide with any special event, so the details of that seem less important to me.

As for myself, I was baptized the day before my 14th birthday. My mother had a strict rule that none of her children could be baptized before they were twelve. In the church we went to, they only did baptisms twice a year. Just a few months before I turned twelve, one of the baptisms was held; and my mother absolutely refused to let me get baptized. She was very adamant about the twelve-year-old rule, though I still do not understand why. Also, my older brother who was thirteen at the time was getting baptized, and she wanted it to be his special day. Then, we stopped going to that church shortly after. Our family did not go to church at all after that for almost a year; and then when we started going to a new church later (though I myself had been going to this new church during the entire year that the rest of my family was absent), she still would not allow me to be baptized. It was something that I really wanted; but she said that she was not sure I really was a Christian, so she couldn't allow me to be baptized. After a while, the subject sort of died. Then, at some point when the church we were then going to was having people sign up for baptism, I just signed up. I didn't ask or discuss it with either of my parents. I figured I would just go ahead and get baptized, and they would never be the wiser. The reason was because they were doing it during a Wednesday night service at another church (because ours had no baptismal), and my parents never went to church on Wednesday nights. What I hadn't counted on was the fact that they put the names of everyone being baptized in the bulletin on the Sunday directly preceding that! Woah... I was so busted. My mom was furious, but she did not stop me. It would have made her look bad to go to my pastor and tell him that he can't baptize me because she thought that I wasn't a Christian. My pastor and youth pastor both knew me fairly well at that point in my life, and they would have thought she was nuts if she had said something like that to them. Anyways, both my parents came, which was utterly embarrassing to me. The feeling of mortification passed eventually, though. And I was happy that I had finally gotten baptised. I was a bit embarrassed also because in that church, no one my age ever got baptized. They usually got baptized when they were somewhere between 5-7 years old or if they were new Christians. The group I was baptized with was composed entirely of new Christians, who were all adults that were thirty or older. It made me feel a little out of place.

[ruffian.14]

I don't like it. It should be the child's choice; not something pushed on them by their parents.

[arwenelizabeth]

As we can already see, people's views on infant baptism are going to vary greatly depending on what they believe baptism is.

In the teaching of my tradition (Catholic) baptism is the foremost sacrament of initiation, the beginning of Christian life. Its purposes are to erase the stain of original sin and to give the baptised one the gift of the Holy Spirit which makes him a full participant in the life of Christ. (More information here (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.htm#art1).)

In the early days of Christianity most of the people who were baptised were adults, who went through intense catechesis beforehand. But a few centuries later, thanks to the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo, infant baptism became more common. Augustine argued that since baptism is necessary for salvation (per John 3:5 - "no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" (NAB)) it was vital for infants to receive it as soon as possible. The Church agreed, and infant baptism became the norm until the Protestant Reformation, when many rebelled against it - and in many Protestant denominations the definition of baptism has changed drastically since then. But infant baptism is still the norm in the Catholic Church, and that is why you will hear of priests being called to hospitals to baptise newborns whose lives are in danger.

I believe that since baptism cleanses from the condemning stain of original sin, that infant baptism is not only an acceptable but a vital practice. In accordance with this, my own children - the first of whom will be born this coming fall - will be baptised as soon after their births as possible.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It is also understood to be the fulfillment of the promise that was foreshadowed by circumcision under the Old Covenant. Since that was imposed on infants without their consent to bring them into the covenant, the parallel was taken to apply to baptism.

[broken.]

As we can already see, people's views on infant baptism are going to vary greatly depending on what they believe baptism is.

In the teaching of my tradition (Catholic) baptism is the foremost sacrament of initiation, the beginning of Christian life. Its purposes are to erase the stain of original sin and to give the baptised one the gift of the Holy Spirit which makes him a full participant in the life of Christ. (More information here (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.htm#art1).)

In the early days of Christianity most of the people who were baptised were adults, who went through intense catechesis beforehand. But a few centuries later, thanks to the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo, infant baptism became more common. Augustine argued that since baptism is necessary for salvation (per John 3:5 - "no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" (NAB)) it was vital for infants to receive it as soon as possible. The Church agreed, and infant baptism became the norm until the Protestant Reformation, when many rebelled against it - and in many Protestant denominations the definition of baptism has changed drastically since then. But infant baptism is still the norm in the Catholic Church, and that is why you will hear of priests being called to hospitals to baptise newborns whose lives are in danger.

I believe that since baptism cleanses from the condemning stain of original sin, that infant baptism is not only an acceptable but a vital practice. In accordance with this, my own children - the first of whom will be born this coming fall - will be baptised as soon after their births as possible.


So does that mean that in the churches that do not practice infant baptisim, everyone still carries the stain of original sin until they are baptized?

I see nothing wrong with the act of infant baptisim, I just disagree with the reasoning behind it. I don't believe that someone can become a full participant in Christian life until they have the capacity to understand it and make the decision to follow Christ. Also, while I believe we carry a sin nature that was brought into the world by Adam and Eve, I don't believe we still carry the original sin of what occured in the garden.

[ForgivenAcceptedPure]

Baptism does not wash away the stains of original sins, it shows that you have died to self (when you go under) and when you comeup, you are made new in Christ, it is just symbolism. it doesn't actually make you a christian or save you from your sins, only a personal relationship with God can do that.
If you are not baptised, that doesn't mean you aren't going to go to heaven. Baptism is your public confession of faith, not a way to save yourself.

Like i said before, i don't have anything against infant baptism, but i don't see a need for it. i think a child dedication is a better idea, showing that you will do what you can to help bring the child up loveing God, but baptism is supposed to be your own choice, as a child you cannot make that choice yourself. I think that you can be baptised as a child, but you still need to make the decision yourself when you are old enough.

Jesus himself was not baptised as a child, but when He went to John the Baptist, He was baptised as an adult, by his own decision. I think He was setting an example for us.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Baptism does not wash away the stains of original sins, it shows that you have died to self (when you go under) and when you comeup, you are made new in Christ, it is just symbolism.This is the Anabaptist perspective, and is a minority view in Christian history. Upon what basis do you make this claim? The Scriptures are largely silent about the spiritual effect of baptism; they simply use powerful imagery to try to convey its meaning and importance. (e.g. 1 Peter 3:21, Col 2:12, Rom 6:4, et. al) None of these images leave the idea that baptism is "just symbolism". It was the later Church, including spiritual giants such as St. Augustine, who explained baptism's effectiveness in terms of restoring the grace lost by our ancestors.
Jesus himself was not baptised as a child, but when He went to John the Baptist, He was baptised as an adult, by his own decision. I think He was setting an example for us.Remember, both John and Jesus were born under the law of the Old Covenant - which Jesus alone fulfilled perfectly. Both Jesus and John were circumcised as infants, which under the Old Covenant was the rite of initiation into the covenant people. The apostles were trained by Jesus to baptize (John 3:22), and when they baptized, they baptized entire families (Acts 16:32, possibly Acts 10), including children.

[ForgivenAcceptedPure]

i made the claim that when you are brought under the water, it symbolizes dying to self, and when you are brought up, is symbolizes being brought to life in Christ. In romans 6:4 is says we are buried with Christ in our sin (going under) and since we have died to ourselves, and given our earthy desires to God, we allow Him to make us a new creation in Him. I say it is just symbolism because when you decide to follow Christ, you have already died to self and been raised new in Him. when you are baptised, you are not dying to self again, you showing people that you have died to self.
In 1 peter 3:21 it tells us that it is not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge that we are making. when we are baptised, we show the public that we have made the choice to follow Christ and that they can hold us accountable for actions.
I wasn't saying that this is waht really happens, Jesus often uses symbols to demonstrate what He means. Baptism doesn't make you a christian, it is a public confession of faith, one that should be made by a person old enough to make that decision for themselves.
I hope i made sense where i am coming from, this is my view and i am not going to try and force my beliefs on anyone.

[Yahtzee]

i think its completely and undeniably stupid i mean u get babtized to represent the washing of your sins and as an infant what sins have u commited other than pulling someones hair

[Narborg]

Personlly, I dnot think infits should be baptised, as it is there chosie at the end of the day what they belive. Both my perents were baptised at infinits, but then wanted to be baptised as adults, so they didnt baptise me as a child, I got dedicated insted, which I think is beter. Althoght at the end of the day, if perents want to show there faith by bptising there childen as infints, then they should ba able to. But I dont think conformation should be pused on people. That is definily wrong. They should only get confermed if it is relally what they belive.

[Neevil]

I just got baptized three weeks ago, so before hand I read several passeges of Scripture concerning it. In everything that I read, baptisim took place immediately after the person believed in Christ and became a Christain. So, I do not agree with infant baptism, because it is the expression of an already established Christian faith. An infant or young child cannot make that decision for themselves, yet.

[ForgivenAcceptedPure]

I agree with you completely. and congratulations on taking the step of baptism!

[echoscot]

Wow, this is an extremely touchy subject unlike the other threads on abortion and is the Bible sexist which are very passive :rolleyes:

Anyway, I do not believe baptism is a "requirement" for salvation. There are many churches that teach that as I am very much aware. My reasoning for that is primarily because of the thief on the cross. Jesus tells him that "today you shall be with me in Paradise". As far as I can tell he never got baptized. I think baptism is an important step in obedience to Christ, but the teachings of grace as stated in Ephesians is that we are not saved by works so no man can boast, but by Grace. I am also aware of the passages in Acts where Paul says, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized and you shall be saved, both you and your household. But I think the salvation part is the belief, the Baptism is the act of obedience as one is capable.The act does not do anything by itself, but the faith is what carries the weight.

That being said, I have nothing against Baptism of Infants. What our church does is a dedication ceremony for the parents and the Church to dedicate them to the teachings of Scripture. Then when a child comes of age and makes a decision for themselves they can be baptized.

I believe baptism of infants can be a beautiful ceremony. However, POTW, that teaching is not just anabaptist, nor is it a small minority. There is a great majority of Protestant churches that do not practice infant baptism. Most Baptist, Assembly of God, 4-Square, Non-denominational and a few others I can't think of off-hand do not practice infant baptism for the reasons I listed above. I am not sure, but I think even the Methodist churches or branches of them have moved away from it.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

However, POTW, that teaching is not just anabaptist, nor is it a small minority. There is a great majority of Protestant churches that do not practice infant baptism. Most Baptist, Assembly of God, 4-Square, Non-denominational and a few others I can't think of off-hand do not practice infant baptism for the reasons I listed above. I am not sure, but I think even the Methodist churches or branches of them have moved away from it.I was using "anabaptist" in the theologically historical sense of a way of thinking about something. During the Reformation, the "anabaptists" were considered an extreme sect and condemned as heretics by both Catholic and other Protestants. Yet anabaptist thinking has crept far and wide. For instance, in our town there's a Presbyterian church that doesn't practice infant baptism, even though that is the official stance of the Presbyterian Church. Why not? Because the congregation was taken over by anabaptists about two generations ago, and they put a stop to it.

I'll try to weigh in later with the Catholic/Orthodox point of view here. For instance, you may be surprised to hear that the Thief on the Cross was baptized...

More to come.

[Aslan's Beloved Daughter]

Infant baptism is very unfair. I think that when you get baptised into a religion you have decided that you are going to put yourself into a relationship with your god/God. When babies are baptised, it is totally going against them and not letting them make the decision. And, yes, I know that the parents want to make sure that their child is "safe from evil" and all that, but I think it would be wise to let the child grow up and make their own decision on how they want to live.

[ForgivenAcceptedPure]

I was just wondering how you, POTW, know that the theif on the cross was baptised, was he baptised when he was dead, or did they take him off the cross and did he live? and i was wondering where you have proof of that.

[msdavidwenham]

I do not believe in Infant baptism. Why? A child is not born of sin. Baptism is to wash away sin and becoming a re-born again Christian. A infant has not commented any sins when they are born.

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

was he baptised when he was dead, or did they take him off the cross and did he live? and i was wondering where you have proof of that.
Good point, friend.

Baptism is a choice made by one person when he/she is old enough to understand that choice and the commitment that follows. It is a public statement that you have chosen to follow Christ. Baptism is symbolic of being reborn as a Christian, but it is not the actual rebirth. The rebirth is when you choose to commit your life to Christ and become a Christian. That does not happen when a baby is showered with water by the will of the parents.

I don't have a problem with infant baptism, but it doesn't do anything for the baby. It's juss like baptising the dead. They had no choice.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to this thread - lots of irons in the fire here.

The immediate concern with respect to baptism is Jesus' saying in John 3:5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The Church from the days of the apostles has always interpreted that as meaning baptism, and it's pretty severe. If you take the words of Jesus seriously, then you have to pay attention to that, especially when it's backed up by Mark 16:16, Matthew 28:19, and lots of other verses. It's also clear that the apostles took the command seriously: when accepting converts, the first thing they did was baptize them (see Acts 2:38, 9:18, 10:47, 8:36, 19:5, and all sorts of places in the Epistles of St. Paul.) Given the length of the controversy, it's not unusual to see people soft-pedaling these words, but if you take Scripture at face value, and look at the practices of the early Church, you see that they took baptism quite seriously.

But, of course, we've got the issue of the Thief on the Cross. The Church had to deal with even more interesting incidents - there were a few cases where pagan Roman soldiers were assigned to guard Christians being held in cages before being shoved into the Arena to be torn to shreds by wild animals. All they did was stand there while the Christians prepared themselves for martyrdom, but when it came time to open the gates, some of the guards threw down their weapons and walked in with the Christians. Based on what they'd seen, they decided they'd rather die with these Christians than live the lives they'd been living. So what about that? Based on the minimal and indirect witness of the Christian prisoners, these guards had not only chosen Christ, they'd chosen martyrdom for Christ, which not only makes them saved but saints - yet they'd never been baptized in water.

So what, then? Do incidents like that invalidate Christ's words? The modern minimalist mindset would probably jump to that conclusion. After all, one of the greatest sacramental theologians of all time, St. Thomas Aquinas, said "God is not limited by the Sacraments." God can distribute His saving grace however He chooses. So does that mean we can dispense with all the baptisms and eucharists and oil and stuff and just settle for having heart attitudes toward God (whatever that means)? Some have done just that. But others have said, "God must have established these for a reason. We may not understand it, but sometimes we must obey anyway." Do a few exceptions mean that the normal path ordained by God is invalid?

Here's what the Church ended up ruling: though water baptism is the normal and expected path of entry into Christ's body, there are other forms of baptism. One is the Baptism of Blood, which is what the Thief on the Cross and the Roman guards received. It's rare, but it happens. Slightly more common is the Baptism of Desire. This was declared because in the days of the early Church, entry was a long process. Converts were catechized for over a year in a rigorous process of training and discernment. The Church took seriously the words of Jesus in Mark 4:16,17 and wanted to weed out such "converts". It occasionally happened that people died during this year before they had a chance to be baptized. In this case, the Church ruled, the intentions of their hearts sufficed, and God (who knew that they were going to die during the catechuminate year) would grant them the grace of Baptism because of their desire for it.

Here again, the modern minimalist mindset would be tempted to say, "That's it, then! If someone just desires Christ, then doesn't that qualify as the Baptism of Desire? Why bother with these rituals?" Well, you can chance that, if you wish - but you'll have to take that up with Jesus, who spoke those words to Nicodemus. You'll also have to take it up with St. Peter, who, when he saw the Holy Spirit fall on the gentiles at Cornelius' house, didn't say, "Hey, you've got it! There's nothing more for me to do!" No, St. Peter baptized them. Likewise, when the Ethiopian eunuch asked St. Philip whether he could be baptized, the apostle didn't reply, "Oh, you don't need those rituals - all that matters is that you give your heart to Christ." No, Philip baptized him.

I say this to address any question of whether baptism is "necessary". As the Scriptures and Church both indicate, water baptism is not "necessary" - there are other forms by which saving grace can be administered - but it is normative. If anyone here has committed their life to Christ and has not yet been baptized, I encourage you to read the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles very carefully and then ask yourself why you haven't performed that act of obedience yet.

As to what Baptism is, and how it works - both of which are relevant to the question of the baptism of infants - I'll have to weigh in another time.

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

Do a few exceptions mean that the normal path ordained by God is invalid?
No, but exceptions indicate that people can enter the Kingdom of Heaven without being baptized. And that directly contradicts the idea that you have to be baptized to be saved. The solution is that being "born of water" is a reference to the natural birthing process, and being born of the Spirit happens when one chooses to accept Christ as Lord. There's no question that being baptized is important, but it is not necessary for salvation.

The Catholic solution to the problem is that "born of water" means "baptized" and you can be "baptized" by things other than water, even though Christ only mentioned water. That doesn't make sense because if you were baptized by some other element, you would not be "born of water" like Jesus said.

The point is that infant baptism doesn't do anything but make the parents look like good Catholics and get a kid wet. It doesn't save the baby or protect it from demons. And it certainly doesn't show that the baby has dedicated its life to Jesus. Baptism is important, but it is a choice made by believers in order to show their dedication as Christians. There is no mention of infants being baptized in the Bible, and no reason to think it was supported by Christ. But baptism is so important that people began baptizing babies just in case.

If it's not clear by now that being baptized isn't necessary for salvation, you should read Romans 10:9. It tells you that you can be saved without being baptized. Baptism is still very important because it is an outward sign of an inner conviction. It loses that meaning when infants are baptized.

[arwenelizabeth]

The point is that infant baptism doesn't do anything but make the parents look like good Catholics and get a kid wet.
Pardon me, HPPG, but as a faithful Catholic who believes in the real efficacy of baptism for erasing the stain of original sin (I've already stated my beliefs about baptism in this thread), I find this statement not a little insensitive and insulting. You believe that baptizing an infant does nothing but "get a kid wet." But I, and millions of Catholics worldwide, and countless faithful believers throughout Christian history, have believed and continue to believe otherwise, and until someone has made an almighty ruling in this thread on what baptism truly is (and that's not going to happen) I'd appreciate it if you'd remember that while you might believe strongly that baptizing infants is pointless, it's important to respect those who believe otherwise. I'll return the favor by not saying things like, "People who don't baptize their infants are clearly ignorant." And we'll be good. :)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Wow. The level of ignorance in your post, HPPG, is unbelievable. You obviously don't know that infant baptism is a majority position in Christian history. Not just Catholics, but Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and most other Reformational traditions profess infant baptism. Only a relatively minor sect, the Anabaptists, rejected it. So you'd have to modify your prejudiced statement to say something like "make the parents look like good Catholics, or Orthodox, or Anglican, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian, ..."

A question here: how do you deal with Jesus' statement that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"?

[msdavidwenham]

What is the purpose of infant baptism? Baptism is to wash away sins and take Christ into your life. How is an infant to understand that? They are not born already commenting sins. The Bible does not say that you must baptize an infant. I was baptize at the age of eight where I understood what the meaning of baptism was. I accept those who believe in infant baptism I just don't understand why it is done.

"The point is that infant baptism doesn't do anything but make the parents look like good Catholics and get a kid wet."
I believe that this comment was uncalled for.

"Catholic who believes in the real efficacy of baptism for erasing the stain of original sin"
What is the "erasing the stain of original sin"? What original sin is an infant born with?

I did not baptize my children at birth because they had no sins that needed to wash away. They were all baptize at the age of eight when they understood what being baptize meant and had want to accept Chirst into their lives. I believe that being baptize is a choice that is make by someone and an baby can make make that choice.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

"Original Sin" is difficult wording unless you've been taught exactly what it means. "A dis-graced condition" would be a better way of putting it.

I don't have time to unpack all the Scriptural background behind this right now, but here's the quick rundown. When Adam and Eve were created, they were just creatures. They had no more right to come into God's presence, much less become part of His family, than a giraffe had. Even without committing any sin, they still had no right. But God, in His great love, granted them the gift of adoption into His family. This was called saving (or salvific) grace, and they had it until they disobeyed and ate of the Tree of Life. Remember how God said that if they ate of the Tree, that day they would surely die? Well, they did in the most important sense - they lost that saving grace. They were no longer part of God's family, they could not see His face nor come into His presence. Their actual sin - disobedience - didn't just stain them, it lost that grace.

They couldn't pass along what they lost, so when Cain and Abel were born, they had physical life, but lacked that grace. It was gone from the race. Even if a man didn't do much actual sinning (direct disobedience himself), he still couldn't get to heaven because he didn't have the grace. Even great saints like Enoch and Elijah, who were taken from the earth before physical death, could not come into God's presence without that grace.

Christ died to open the door to restoring that grace. Most of the Christian Church for most of its history has understood that baptism (understood broadly, as in my earlier post) was how God restored that grace.

Is it valid to have that grace restored to an infant who is not aware of what is happening? The Church looked at the history of God's earlier people, the Israelites, for guidance. Sure enough, there was a covenant sign of entry for infants - circumcision. It was the mark of entry into the covenant people. So the Church ruled that baptism could be applied to infants as well, since it not only restored the saving grace but brought the child into the covenant family of the Church.

Did that mean the baptized person got a free ticket to heaven? Well, did circumcision mean that an Israelite got a free ticket to heaven? Read the prophets to see the answer there - of course it didn't. Being adopted into the Covenant also meant having to learn, struggle, obey, and persevere. It was that way in the Old Covenant, it is that way in the New. As St. Augustine put it, "the mark of baptism will be found on many souls in hell." But does that mean baptism is meaningless, or a mere external sign that can be dispensed with? Again, I recommend all to read the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of St. Paul to see how seriously the apostles took baptism. I, for one, am not going to pretend I know so much better than they.

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

You believe that baptizing an infant does nothing but "get a kid wet." But I, and millions of Catholics worldwide, and countless faithful believers throughout Christian history, have believed and continue to believe otherwise, and until someone has made an almighty ruling in this thread on what baptism truly is (and that's not going to happen) I'd appreciate it if you'd remember that while you might believe strongly that baptizing infants is pointless, it's important to respect those who believe otherwise.
You believe strongly in infant baptism. I believe strongly that it doesn't do anything. We simply disagree, but that's not a good reason to be offended or insulted. If you want me to respect your belief, you should try to start by showing some respect for mine by not calling it insulting. I never said that baptizing infants is wrong. There's just no biblical evidence that it does anything.

Wow. The level of ignorance in your post, HPPG, is unbelievable. You obviously don't know that infant baptism is a majority position in Christian history. Not just Catholics, but Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and most other Reformational traditions profess infant baptism.
You mean that I am ignorant because I grouped infant baptism and Catholicism together? How silly of me. I didn't mean that only Catholics baptize kids who are too young to understand the meaning. I was just thinking of Catholics when I said that. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant. But name-calling is not friendly.

A question here: how do you deal with Jesus' statement that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"?
I have already stated that being born of water is a reference to the natural birthing process. It's not really a limitation. It's just saying that you have to be born, and then reborn. Being born of the Spirit means you have accepted Christ into your life as your Savior. Baptism is symbollic of that choice.

There are two reasons that being "born of water" cannot mean "baptized". The theif next to Jesus on the cross was not "born of water". You can say he was baptized by blood or something else, but the fact remains that water had nothing to do with it. The second reason is that Romans 10:9 tells us that we can be saved without being baptized.

It is not right for children to suffer for the faults of their parents. If infant baptism is so important, children who are not baptized are suffering because their parents failed. Look at Duet. 24:16. And the Bible talks a lot about suffering for being Christian. If infant baptism is supposed to make the baby a Christian, it is also a sentence to suffering.

And 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism is "an appeal to God from/for a clean conscience." Babies don't have the ability to make that appeal. Infant baptism is forced upon children. Like I said, baptism represents a choice to follow Christ... that choice cannot be made by infants and it is not for parents to make.

[Solya]

I do know that children who have been touched by the water they use for baptising are more protected from demons and other negativity than the ones who haven't been touched in that respect. For me, the baptism of a baby is the symbol of promising to raise your child with God and also the promise to protect your child from harm. There is no original sin in my opinion, but I think that infant baptism isn't just for show. It does protect the child -- especially if the child is sensitive to "the other world" -- and I am grateful to my parents for giving me that protection straight away.

But yes, being "reborn" cannot be achieved at such a young age. You don't necessarily have to be baptised once you are "reborn" though, because the Holy Spirit recognises all those who do the work of God on this Earth regardless of whether you've been baptised or not. Baptism is also a symbol of forgiveness for your old ways and the acceptance of a new life in the hands of God. It's got nothing more than symbolic value in the matter of "rebirth".

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

Solya, why do you think infant baptism protects the infants from demons and other negativity? I'm pretty sure it's not in the Bible. The Bible doesn't even say that regular baptism protects people in that way. Does it?

[Solya]

I don't know if it says anything about it, but I've personally experienced the protection it can bring to a human. Once I was confronted by two demonic entities and they couldn't harm me completely because I was, according to them, "protected by God and called His child through the water which gives true life". Since then I have always seen the value of baptism (for I felt that this was what they meant with the water which gives true life) and I think that it does give you some protection from harm.

Also, churches and holy ground in general are really places where negativity and dark forces cannot touch you... I had absorbed negativity once and the moment I entered the church I felt it flood out of my body again, leaving me completely whole once more. :) They are protected and "bound" by the same things which are used in baptism. That's why I believe that it does give you some tangible results, even though most of the ceremony is purely symbolical in itself.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I remember an interesting incident that happened to a friend of mine, an evangelical minister who held firmly to the adult baptism/baptism is nothing but a symbol point of view. One he was praying for a child who had been baptized as a child. The minister was praying for guidance as to how to pray and felt the Holy Spirit lead him to plead the boy's baptism over him. Mystified, the minister obeyed, and the boy was healed.

Now, I realize that this is a private revelation and cannot be used as a basis for doctrine, but it's very interesting that it occurred. First off, the minister in question didn't even believe in the efficacy of infant baptism, and secondly, baptism was the furthest thing from his mind while he was praying for the boy's healing. Yet out of the clear blue sky, the Holy Spirit urged him to pray on the basis of the boy's baptism. If baptism did nothing but "get the kid wet", then why did the Holy Spirit use it as a basis for prayer? And why did it work?

Incidentally, this boy's parents had not been raising him in the faith, which was a clear violation of the vows that they'd taken when they had him baptized. (They also weren't Catholic.) Yet the sacrament was still valid in God's eyes, and able to be used to the boy's benefit.

As a consequence, my minister friend went back and restudied Scripture on baptism, changed his mind and had all his children baptized, and eventually became an Orthodox priest.

[msdavidwenham]

I do know that children who have been touched by the water they use for baptising are more protected from demons and other negativity than the ones who haven't been touched in that respect. For me, the baptism of a baby is the symbol of promising to raise your child with God and also the promise to protect your child from harm. There is no original sin in my opinion, but I think that infant baptism isn't just for show. It does protect the child -- especially if the child is sensitive to "the other world" -- and I am grateful to my parents for giving me that protection straight away.

But yes, being "reborn" cannot be achieved at such a young age. You don't necessarily have to be baptised once you are "reborn" though, because the Holy Spirit recognises all those who do the work of God on this Earth regardless of whether you've been baptised or not. Baptism is also a symbol of forgiveness for your old ways and the acceptance of a new life in the hands of God. It's got nothing more than symbolic value in the matter of "rebirth".The Mormon don't do infant baptism but when a child is born he/she is giving a blessing (which the Elders of the church puts their hands on the child's head and give the child a blessing) to protect him/her through life and that the parents teaches the child the way to llve to make it back to God one day. The age for baptism for our church is the age eight which we believe thats when a child reaches the age that they understand right from wrong and understand what being baptize means. And at this age the child is held responseable for their own wrong doing (choices). But this however does not stop the parents from going on and teaching the child the way to live a good life.

[Solya]

Yes, that blessing holds pretty much the same meaning as a baptism will. :) I think it is better to have your children take the blessing the moment they understand what it's about, anyway.

[msdavidwenham]

Yes, that blessing holds pretty much the same meaning as a baptism will. :) I think it is better to have your children take the blessing the moment they understand what it's about, anyway.I had written down the blessings so they know what was said.

[DaughterofGondor]

I'm a Lutheran and I was baptized as a baby, but I'm going through Confimation, belive in Jesus as my savior, so if you belive that, it really doesn't matter when you were baptized,it jsut matters that sometimes in your life you are... but that's jsut my opinion. If you have the ability to be baptized, do it. It doesn't matter how old you are. As i said earlier, i was bapztied only 5 days after i was born, and i'm glad I was. I say it does'nt matter the age, just get baptized, believe in God,a nd belive that Jesus is your savior, and i'll see y'all in heaven! lol

[Queen Swanwhite]

Our church doesn't do baptisms, but dedications. We dedicate the baby to the Lord. We have adult baptisms, when that person decides whether to become a Christian or not then. I'm not baptised..I'm 13. I might get baptised next year.

[TimmyofOz]

My parents baptized me as an infant and I was also baptized after I became a born-again Christian. In both cases the only real physical thing that happen was that I got wet. When my parents did it, they were saying that they wanted me to be a Christian by their guidance. When I did, I was being obedient to Christ that I make a public statement that I had been changed when I accepted Jesus into my life. :)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

That's certainly your perspective, Tim, but some of us believe that when the Scriptures speak of Baptism being a union with Christ in His death (Rom 6) and resurrection (1 Pet 3), that means that God actually does something when the person is immersed or the water is poured. We understand that as being something more than "only" getting wet. Of course, the only physical manifestation was wetness - but again, the only physical manifestation of the Incarnation was a Galilean peasant. What goes on in the realm of the spirit is much more.

[TimmyofOz]

PotW, you know I Cor. 1:13-17. St. Paul makes it clear that he wants the Corinthians to not worry about baptism but to listen to the gospel that he is preaching that we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. I came to Christ as a Baptist. And when I had myself baptised in public it was to make a statement of what had already occured in my heart when the Holy Spirit came into my life when I prayed to God that I believed in His Son's death to save me from my sins. When I was immersed (something Catholics don't do) the Holy Spirit didn't seep in me though my ears or nose. He was already in me. When I was baptised I did it in obedience to Christ (Matt. 28:19), showing the world that my old self is dead and I am alive in Christ (Col. 2:12). But if you read Col. 2:11 you will see St. Paul discribes a symbolic circumcision of putting off our sins through Christ. Yet St. Paul makes it clear we do not actually have to be circumcised to put off our sins. The same goes for baptism, in that we don't actually have to be immersed for the old self to die and so we came be alive in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit. But it is a lot easier to be baptised in public so we can tell the world what Christ is doing in our life, than dropping out pants to show it. Also a lot easier for the girl Christians. :)