U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Infant Baptism (For or Against)
Against it 29 28.71%
For it 35 34.65%
I like tacos 14 13.86%
I'm neither for or against 21 20.79%
bigthirsty is great 15 14.85%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-16-2008, 07:36 AM
 
4,439 posts, read 8,059,763 times
Reputation: 1461

Advertisements

Thoughts on Infant Baptism?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2008, 07:48 AM
 
255 posts, read 541,758 times
Reputation: 85
I don't see much difference between infant baptism/confirmation when older and being both baptized and confirmed when older.

It's nice to have a ritual welcoming a child into a faith community, and baptism is one possible ritual. It's also important for individuals to have a chance to affirm their faith when they are old enough to do so, and confirmation is one possible way to do that.

But then, I don't believe that the baptism is required for salvation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Texas
8,668 posts, read 19,914,691 times
Reputation: 21277
I was part of a denomination (Episcopal) for several years who practiced infant baptism. I don't think it's a big issue, but no, I'm not in agreement with it since we don't find it being practiced in scripture. I think it's "getting the horse before the cart" so to speak. It seems preferable to me for a child to be old enough to choose to follow Christ for themselves and to understand baptism at least a little before we baptize them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 08:07 AM
 
1,932 posts, read 4,256,655 times
Reputation: 1233
IMO, infant baptism is more for the parents and relatives than for the child. The child is unaware of what's happening and is unable to make a conscious decision one way or the other.

I'm not dogmatic about it. I don't think it's wrong. If it's something the parents believe in, that's fine. If it makes them feel better or rest easier, go for it. If you don't think it's necessary or needed while they're infants, that's fine too.

I personally believe baptism is to be performed after someone acknowledges their need for Jesus and accepts Him into their heart as their Lord and Savior. If that happens at the age of 5, then get baptized at 5. If it happens at the age of 50, then get baptized at 50.

Last edited by mams1559; 01-16-2008 at 08:08 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 08:07 AM
 
Location: Maine
15,078 posts, read 19,718,275 times
Reputation: 17188
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaykay View Post
I'm not in agreement with it since we don't find it being practiced in scripture.
And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. (Acts 16:33)

You don't think there were any children in the entire household?


Quote:
Originally Posted by kaykay View Post
It seems preferable to me for a child to be old enough to choose to follow Christ for themselves and to understand baptism at least a little before we baptize them.
If a complete understanding is necessary for baptism, then I don't know that any of us qualify.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 08:27 AM
 
2,065 posts, read 4,161,028 times
Reputation: 972
Default more for the parents.......

Quote:
Infant Baptism (Wrong, Right or Neither)
Neither ...

Greek, Roman, Lutheran, Anglican churches perform infant baptism, and there may be others, just not sure.

During the age of Constantine I believe (not 100% sure) adult baptism was the norm (but not an absolute), and prior to that it was adults. Baptism originally was conditional, based on repentance and conversion.... you were then baptized and regeneration began. Of course, an infant can not repent or convert, but regeneration does begin and the responsibility for leading the child to repentance and conversion falls into the hands of the parents or guardians. Confirmation provides the conduit when repentance and conversion takes place at the age of consent.

I personally see more value in "age of consent" baptism and have always been a fan of a "rite of passage" for young people. My confirmation (Lutheran) was my moment or re-birth and has always held a place in my heart.

My home church does not do infant baptism... we do dedications and ask the parents to afirm their responsibility publically, and to assume the responsibility to bring the child up, in the full admonition of the Lord.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Texas
8,668 posts, read 19,914,691 times
Reputation: 21277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. (Acts 16:33)

You don't think there were any children in the entire household?


If a complete understanding is necessary for baptism, then I don't know that any of us qualify.
I agree, but please notice I said "a little" understanding. Not complete. There is a difference.

As for as the members of Cornelius' house, we aren't told whether there were infants present or not. As for as children being baptized, that's a horse of a different color! My own son was baptized at age 5 but I believed that he DID have sufficient understanding of accepting Christ at that point (as much as a five year old can) and he came to us requesting baptism. It wasn't our idea to baptize him so young.

But I don't think it's a big issue, really. As I said, I was a confirmed Episcopalian. So I'm not upset by the practice. I just think "believer's baptism" is the better way. ( I don't think baptism is necessary for salvation.) I don't think children are "accountable spiritually" until they reach a certain age or level of spiritual understanding.

Last edited by kaykay; 01-16-2008 at 09:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 09:29 AM
 
2,955 posts, read 6,628,278 times
Reputation: 1924
Although I do like tacos, I had to go with bigthirsty-is-great because I think that is the more important issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 09:32 AM
 
Location: Texas
8,668 posts, read 19,914,691 times
Reputation: 21277
Quote:
Originally Posted by b. frank View Post
Although I do like tacos, I had to go with bigthirsty-is-great because I think that is the more important issue.
Hey, we agree on something! I think bigthirsty is great too!(though I didn't vote for him!)

...and I do like tacos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 10:09 AM
 
1,897 posts, read 3,034,991 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. (Acts 16:33)

You don't think there were any children in the entire household?

If a complete understanding is necessary for baptism, then I don't know that any of us qualify.
Mark S.: What is the context of Acts 16:25f? It is the account of the salvation of the Philippian jailer. He asked Paul and Silas:

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (verse 30). They answered: "BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your house" (implying that they were to believe also). There are only two possibilities here--(1) His believing saved himself and his household (2) It was necessary for him to believe in order to be saved and it was necessary for his household to believe in order to be saved. Unless one believes that the faith of one person can guarantee the salvation of others, the only credible possibility is that each must believe for himself. In other words, the Philippian jailer believed and his household believed as well. There is nothing stated here about children or infants--that must be inferred. It is an argument from silence.

The Philippian jailer took Paul and Silas to his home, washed their wounds, and fed them. He rejoiced--"believing in God WITH ALL HIS HOUSE" (verses 33-34). He believed and his house believed. Belief is necessary for salvation and precedes baptism. He and his household were all baptized because he and his household all demonstrated belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Preterist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top