Infant baptism

[QuagDabPeg]

If someone was baptised as a baby or a young child (6 or 7 years old) and then later proclaimed Jesus, would they necessarily have to be baptised again?

[TwinCrier]

Since I don't believe baptism is regenerative or necessary for salvation, they wouldn't necessarily HAVE to but most Baptist churches require believers baptism (baptism made consciously as a believer in Jesus Christ) before considering someone for official membership.

[SumTinWong]

I guess according to our church they would have to. Something about a Believers Baptism, and it is too hard to gauge whether a 6 or a 7 year old would have the knowledge to accept such a thing.

[The Bad Templar]

I was Christened in the Methodist Church (Australia) as a baby but decided to be baptised as a 20-year-old in a Pentecostal church because they were offering immediate baptism...not like my Baptist church which insisted on an eight-week course and lots of other rigmarole.

I think a believer should be baptisted again because infant baptism is completely involuntary and has no bearing on an adult Christian's faith.

[SumTinWong]

...not like my Baptist church which insisted on an eight-week course and lots of other rigmarole.
I know, it bored me to no end. I wanted to be Baptised right away and had to wait until Thanksgiving. Bah.

[QuagDabPeg]

I know, it bored me to no end. I wanted to be Baptised right away and had to wait until Thanksgiving. Bah.

Although in some ways I think it's good to have to tread through the boring learning stuff first to make sure you really understand what you're doing and it's not just about emotions (which can easily fade).

[CFoster]

...not like my Baptist church which insisted on an eight-week course and lots of other rigmarole.

The Baptist church I was Baptised in and still attend didn't have an eight-week course. What types of Baptist churches do this practice?

[lucypevensie]

Eight weeks seems kind of long but whatever is necessary.... In our (baptist) church you do need to do some kind of interview with a deacon before baptism. They do this in order to make sure the person understand what they are doing. My husband is a deacon so he has done some interviews. You might be surprised at how many people think you can just walk into a church and become a member of it or get baptised, and BAM!, you're on your way to heaven.

[lucypevensie]

Sorry, I forgot to answer the OP. Yes, I think the person should be baptised again. It's my opinion that baptism other than believers baptism is not commanded, and therefore doesn't count :D.

[SumTinWong]

Although in some ways I think it's good to have to tread through the boring learning stuff first to make sure you really understand what you're doing and it's not just about emotions (which can easily fade).
That is true to some extent, which is why I would never personally baptise a child. But a man at the age of reason should not have to wait nine months(seven months until the classes started then two months of classes) and be forced to sit through the history and by laws of the church to know what his/her baptism means :)

[QuagDabPeg]

That is true to some extent, which is why I would never personally baptise a child. But a man at the age of reason should not have to wait nine months(seven months until the classes started then two months of classes) and be forced to sit through the history and by laws of the church to know what his/her baptism means :)

Maybe there could be some comprimise. Like let him be baptised after (several hours, days, week?) of consulation with the Pastor and then encourage him to go through classes or at least personal study. I feel like I've seen too many people who accept Jesus at camps or rallies or in moments of very emotional religious experiences and then once that initial excitement and novelty and emotion wears off they just go back to their old ways and turn way from Jesus again. I think that's part of the problem with the heavy emotion based evangelism, in my eyes. It just doesn't seem to last because people come to Jesus out of an emotional experience without really understanding what's behind it. Not to say that there isn't a place for that, there is also the threat of people who only get the academic side of their faith, adn that's just as much a problem, but there needs to be a balance.

[SumTinWong]

Maybe there could be some comprimise. Like let him be baptised after (several hours, days, week?) of consulation with the Pastor and then encourage him to go through classes or at least personal study.
That is exactly what I was loking for. I think that is a great idea.

I feel like I've seen too many people who accept Jesus at camps or rallies or in moments of very emotional religious experiences and then once that initial excitement and novelty and emotion wears off they just go back to their old ways and turn way from Jesus again.
I couldn't agree more. I have also seen people join one branch of the church just because their spouse to be wants to get married in that church. They go through all kinds of classes without the intention of joining the church. I speak from experience, as i did this ten years ago.

I think that's part of the problem with the heavy emotion based evangelism, in my eyes. It just doesn't seem to last because people come to Jesus out of an emotional experience without really understanding what's behind it. Not to say that there isn't a place for that, there is also the threat of people who only get the academic side of their faith, adn that's just as much a problem, but there needs to be a balance.
I agree. I think that people do and can get caught up in the moment, and not fully understand that this is a journey not a sprint. Good post!!!:thumbsup:

[Crazy Liz]

That is true to some extent, which is why I would never personally baptise a child. But a man at the age of reason should not have to wait nine months(seven months until the classes started then two months of classes) and be forced to sit through the history and by laws of the church to know what his/her baptism means :)
Anabaptists tend to have a rather long catecumenate, during which both doctrine and the obligations of church membership are made clear. I don't think there's a standard, but for me, as a teenager, it was several months. Maybe LL and/or Pastor George will pipe in with other experiences. Anyway, Mennonites differ from Baptists in this area. Whereas Baptists tend to view baptism as an individual commitment to God, Anabaptists also consider baptism a rite of initiation into the church, and a function in which the whole church participates.

So, in contrast to the usual Baptist interview with a pastor, elder or deacon, someone who wants to be baptized in a Mennonite church will typically be asked to give their testimony in a church service, and the whole congregation will accept their candidacy by some kind of "vote" or congregational affirmation before the person is actually baptized. A person is never baptized without becoming a member of the church. Church membership includes the obligation to give and receive counsel. The obligations are quite extensive, so the catecumenate is usually longer, so as to be sure these obligations are undertaken seriously and advisedly. You might compare the period of catecumenate (when a person is "officially" seeking baptism and church membership) to the engagement period before a marriage. The commitment of church membership in a Mennonite church is taken just as seriously, and the length of the period of preparation is similar.

[JMandrell]

Personally I don't believe in baptizing infants. Baptism is a way of showing your loyalty to God after being saved. Baptizing an infant, in my opinion, is really just a waste of time because the baby has no idea what is going on. When a person accepts Jesus, then thru faith they should be baptized.

I don't agree with the waiting period. At my church, if I went to my preacher and told him that i think I need to be baptized he would ask me when I wanted to do it. If I said right now, he would take me to the baptistry after church and baptize me. There has been many occassions where people were baptized the day they accepted Jesus. My church preaches that baptism is a way of giving a public showing that you are washed in the blood of the lamb.

[Matthan]

Baptism as a believer is important for church membership. But waiting two months is just a little much. A discussion with the pastor will quickly determine what the decision to be baptized is based on. If it is true belief, nothing more is necessary.

Matthan <J>< (Mods, I'm not trolling, really I'm not!)

[The Bad Templar]

The Baptist church I was Baptised in and still attend didn't have an eight-week course. What types of Baptist churches do this practice?

It varies from church-to-church. My current church has a much shorter course.

It was very conservative at the previous church I mentioned and a couple of very legitimate young Christians pulled out of the course. The recipient had to wear white and there was also an expectation that after the baptism the recipient would host a big lunch or supper.

I always cite Philip baptising the Ethiopian eunich in Acts. The baptism was immediate, but it was obvious Philip thought he was ready. :thumbsup:

[ZiSunka]

If someone was baptised as a baby or a young child (6 or 7 years old) and then later proclaimed Jesus, would they necessarily have to be baptised again?

Necessary? No. A blessing? Yes. There is no baptism like a Believer's baptism. I was baptized as an infant, and that baptism didn't really have anything to do with me, it was really all about my parents and godparents, I was a spectator more than a participant, it was something done to me more than something done as a result of faith on my part. I had no choice, I was dressed up and taken to church where I was baptized.

My second baptism was all about me and God, about the faith I found in him when I was 30 years old, and about the salvation he gave me when I believed. It was an act of obedience, a deliberate act on my part, something I did so all other people would know that I was siding up with God. I was a participant, the participant, not the spectator this time.

[ZiSunka]

And yes, there was a "proving period" between my asking to be baptized and the actual baptism. Most monnonite churches require a period of time when a person learns the basics of the faith through classes, participates fully in the life of the church, and demonstrates a regenerated life, good character, and the heart-felt desire to grow in the Lord. Some churches even hold congregational meetings to vote on whether or not a person should be baptized and admitted as a member of the church. No unbaptized person can be a member of a mennonite church, and most require a Believer's baptism, not an infant baptism.

[GreenEyedLady]

I feel like I've seen too many people who accept Jesus at camps or rallies or in moments of very emotional religious experiences and then once that initial excitement and novelty and emotion wears off they just go back to their old ways and turn way from Jesus again. I think that's part of the problem with the heavy emotion based evangelism, in my eyes. It just doesn't seem to last because people come to Jesus out of an emotional experience without really understanding what's behind it. Not to say that there isn't a place for that, there is also the threat of people who only get the academic side of their faith, adn that's just as much a problem, but there needs to be a balance.

These people are in every church, not just the evangelical ones. There will always be those Christmas and Easter kinda people who are not really living thier life the best way God would want them to. This is a problem in every denomination and most likey every religion.
As far as waiting to be baptized, I think that is bogas. I do not recall anyone having to wait to take a class in the NT so they would fully understand what they were doing. That is all church propaganda, having people take classes. There is no reason that it could not take no more than just one hour or less to understand what the meaning of baptism is for the believer. I don't agree with this at all. Most the time people are too afraid to make a committment like baptism because they think they are agreeing with the churches doctrines. This should not be the case. Baptism should be just as free as salvation. Seems to me like the church is demanding membership before the person is allowed to be baptized and that is bondage that no believer really needs after being freed from thier sin.
GEL

[Mary of Bethany]

and the whole congregation will accept their candidacy by some kind of "vote" or congregational affirmation before the person is actually baptized.

Something like this used to be done in the SBC I grew up in. The membership "voted" whether or not to receive a person into the church. (I don't think the vote was ever "no" :D ). Do Baptists still do this?

[travisbaptist12]

Infant baptism



If someone was baptised as a baby or a young child (6 or 7 years old) and then later proclaimed Jesus, would they necessarily have to be baptised again?

I believe so, yes. I believe you must know Jesus personally, and consciounsly know what they're going through for it to mean anything. I'm going to be getting baptized soon, I've never been baptized, and I feel it's time. If there is someone here who hasn't been baptized, I encourage you to get baptized.

[SumTinWong]

Something like this used to be done in the SBC I grew up in. The membership "voted" whether or not to receive a person into the church. (I don't think the vote was ever "no" :D ). Do Baptists still do this?
They do it here. I said no, but it was only a joke at the last Baptism :)

[theseed]

If someone was baptised as a baby or a young child (6 or 7 years old) and then later proclaimed Jesus, would they necessarily have to be baptised again?
Yes, because Baptists believe that baptism is a sign that one has entered into the Covenant with God, and therefore a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Everybody who was baptised in the Book of Acts believed first.

[Carrye]

Is there a standard age that would be considered old enough? Or is it more subjective than that?

[Crazy Liz]

Is there a standard age that would be considered old enough? Or is it more subjective than that?

Today, I think you would find it pretty subjective, although in some of the most traditional Anabaptist communities (like the Amish) you will find more norms in terms of age.

In the Amish tradition, for example, children must obey their parents up to age 16, and after that are given their freedom. Any time after this, when they are ready, they may decide whether they want to become a church member and submit to the church's discipline by being baptized. In other words, they not only want a basic understanding of salvaiton, but a free and mature adult commitment. However, if they intend to settle in the Amish community, it is expected they will be baptized before they marry. This age of 16 seems to have some tradition as a marker of adulthood in Anabaptist tradition. When I was growing up in a Mennonite Brethren church, although the most common age for baptism (church membership also being inseparable from baptism) was probably between 12 and 14, a person had to be at least 16 years old and a church member to take part in church business meetings. A younger member might stand with the rest of the members in acceptance of a baptismal candidate to church membership, but when votes were actually counted, they would not participate.

Currently, though, a child who is able to articulate a testimony of his or her conversion and request baptism is usually allowed to be baptized. Occasionally this is as young as 7 or 8 years old. Often it is in the teens. Recently, I have seen a trend in Mennonite churches that lean more toward Anabaptist theology toward baptism later in the teens, and in those that lean more toward evangelical theology, toward baptism of younger children, often between ages 7-12.

[Carrye]

That's interesting, Liz. So baptism is seen more as initiatory rather than regenerative in Mennonite communities?

[Sweet Pea]

A person is Baptize after they make Jesus their Savior and Lord. Baptism shows what happened to a person that they died spiritually to self and now a new creature in Christ. If a person is baptized any other way they just got wet not truly baptized is what the Baptist believe the Bible teaches. A baby cannot make a decision for Christ.

[Crazy Liz]

That's interesting, Liz. So baptism is seen more as initiatory rather than regenerative in Mennonite communities?
Yes! That's a good way to put it.

[Carrye]

A person is Baptize after they make Jesus their Savior and Lord. Baptism shows what happened to a person that they died spiritually to self and now a new creature in Christ. If a person is baptized any other way they just got wet not truly baptized is what the Baptist believe the Bible teaches. A baby cannot make a decision for Christ.

So baptism isn't really with water then? It's with words?

[Carrye]

Yes! That's a good way to put it.

It's always interesting to me to see where beliefs are similar and where they're different. I appreciate the way you answer posts, Liz. You seem very moderate and matter-of-fact.

[HiredGoon]

I was baptized as a child (not an infant) in an American Baptist Church after several weeks of a baptism/membership class with other kids my age, to make sure we knew what we were doing.

At this time I do not believe in re-baptizing.

[ZiSunka]

That's interesting, Liz. So baptism is seen more as initiatory rather than regenerative in Mennonite communities?

In Amish, yes, perhaps, but not in most Mennonite communities. Baptism is a sign of faith and obedience in Christ, not as an introduction to the congregation or as a "coming out" party, as it may seem.

[Crazy Liz]

In Amish, yes, perhaps, but not in most Mennonite communities. Baptism is a sign of faith and obedience in Christ, not as an introduction to the congregation or as a "coming out" party, as it may seem.

Initiatory does not mean a party. It means it is the rite by which one becomes a member of the church and accepts its discipline.

[holyrokker]

My wife and I are dealing with this very issue right now. We both grew up in the
Lutheran church and were both baptized as infants.

My wife has believed in Christ as long as she can remember. Christ has always been real to her.
I came to faith in Christ when I was 16. I'm now in my mid-40's.

We started attending a Baptist church several months ago. There are several reasons why we like the church. It's a very healthy, well-balanced church with a strong emphasis on teaching the Word of God, especially to the children.
We recently attended an "orientation" class for people considering official membership with the church. The only problem we have is that they require adult baptism for official membership.
We can continue to attend the church without becoming official members, but we really want to official join the church.
We are going to make an appointment to meet with the pastor about this.

[Diane_Windsor]

If someone was baptised as a baby or a young child (6 or 7 years old) and then later proclaimed Jesus, would they necessarily have to be baptised again?

No.

[Gold Dragon]

My wife and I are dealing with this very issue right now. We both grew up in the
Lutheran church and were both baptized as infants.

My wife has believed in Christ as long as she can remember. Christ has always been real to her.
I came to faith in Christ when I was 16. I'm now in my mid-40's.

We started attending a Baptist church several months ago. There are several reasons why we like the church. It's a very healthy, well-balanced church with a strong emphasis on teaching the Word of God, especially to the children.
We recently attended an "orientation" class for people considering official membership with the church. The only problem we have is that they require adult baptism for official membership.
We can continue to attend the church without becoming official members, but we really want to official join the church.
We are going to make an appointment to meet with the pastor about this.

My father was baptised by sprinkling in a Presbyterian church and when he became a deacon at our Baptist church, there was a little hurdle in the constitution of our Baptist church that required deacons to be baptized by full immersion.

So he did as a symbol of his commitment to our church. It had nothing to do with his becoming a Christian or symbolizing his remission of sin because he was a Christian leader at the church for decades.

I personally feel that requirements for the mode of baptism in a baptist constitution to be silly, especially since most baptist churches consider baptism to be a symbolic act that is not necessary for salvation.

[Diane_Windsor]

I believe so, yes. I believe you must know Jesus personally, and consciounsly know what they're going through for it to mean anything. I'm going to be getting baptized soon, I've never been baptized, and I feel it's time. If there is someone here who hasn't been baptized, I encourage you to get baptized.


:scratch: Aren't you a Roman Catholic?

On another thread theme I didn't have to take any classes at the Baptist church where I was baptised. I was baptised within a month of receiving Christ as my Saviour.

[jenptcfan]

Rebaptism would not be NECESSARY, but would be available if that's what God was leading the individual to do (out of obedience to the teachings of Christ).

We don't have a big waiting period before someone can be baptized at my church. But they do have a meeting with the pastor first--to make sure that the person understands what baptism is all about and to also give the person all the logistics about being baptized---what to wear under the robe, what time to get there, etc.

[HiredGoon]

I personally feel that requirements for the mode of baptism in a baptist constitution to be silly, especially since most baptist churches consider baptism to be a symbolic act that is not necessary for salvation.


My thoughts exactly.
:amen: :thumbsup:

[Heatherondo]

not like my Baptist church which insisted on an eight-week course and lots of other rigmarole.


WOW! At my (southern baptist) church i just had to wait til the following sunday.... with a brief meeting with the pastor before hand.

[ChiRho]

To the advocates of believers' Baptism,

How can one be sure that they "fully" grasp the meaning of Holy Baptism before being Baptized, and how is one assured that they received it perfectly?

It seems to me, as I have been following this thread, that people have been arguing that Baptism's validity rests in the one being Baptized, instead of God. If this is the case, how could anyone be sure that their Baptism was valid?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[SonOfThunder]

WOW! At my (southern baptist) church i just had to wait til the following sunday.... with a brief meeting with the pastor before hand.

wow, in the Jehovah's Witnesses you have to know what they stand for and undergo several weeks of knowledge. To be baptised you need to know the grass roots of what the belief is.

a girl at church got saved and will be baptised very quickly, I am trying to understand this as she had no Bible background.


James

[Crazy Liz]

To the advocates of believers' Baptism,

How can one be sure that they "fully" grasp the meaning of Holy Baptism before being Baptized, and how is one assured that they received it perfectly?

It seems to me, as I have been following this thread, that people have been arguing that Baptism's validity rests in the one being Baptized, instead of God. If this is the case, how could anyone be sure that their Baptism was valid?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

I don't think I've ever heard a Baptist or Anabaptist use the word "validity" in connection with baptism. I don't think "valid" and "invalid" are categories that even come into play WRT the Baptist or Anabaptist view of baptism. ISTM, "valid" is a legal term having to do with whether or not a legal act confers a particular legal status. If it is sufficiently defective, it is considered invalid, and does not confer the legal status. For example, a legal marriage requires the consent of the bride and groom, each of whom is eligible to marry, and certain formalities that vary from time to time and place to place. If the bride or groom is already married to someone else (assuming only one marriage at a time is allowed) the marriage may later be declared invalid. Although it appeared to affect the status of the bride and groom as a married couple, in reality it did not because of a fatal defect. Baptists and Anabaptists do not view baptism as conferring a legal status, so the concept of validity does not really apply to it.

It's an interesting concept. I don't know whether anyone else might have something different to say about this.

[Crazy Liz]

WOW! At my (southern baptist) church i just had to wait til the following sunday.... with a brief meeting with the pastor before hand.

On this theme, it might be helpful to point out that practices in the early church varied quite a bit. While Acts records many converts being baptized immediately, it seems that by the second century a two-year catechumenate for new converts had become the norm. This period of instruction could be decreased in length for good reasons. For example, if it appeared that a catechumen was about to die, baptism would be administered even though the normal requirements had not been met.

Yet at the same time, infant baptism was also being practiced. It seems that practices varied widely, and there is little or no evidence of arguments among the church fathers about the age of baptism or the length of the catechumenate. Variety seems to have been widely accepted.

[ZiSunka]

wow, in the Jehovah's Witnesses you have to know what they stand for and undergo several weeks of knowledge. To be baptised you need to know the grass roots of what the belief is.

a girl at church got saved and will be baptised very quickly, I am trying to understand this as she had no Bible background.


James

You don't have to know the Bible, just the Savior! :)

[Crazy Liz]

I'd like to clarify what I said about validity, for the benefit of Chi Rho and anyone else. I thought of a more succinct way of saying what I said above.

For Baptists and Anabaptists, the value of baptism is purely subjective. Therefore, objective categories like "valid" and "invalid" are irrelevant to baptism.

[ZiSunka]

I would say that baptism done to fulfill a religious obligation or done without the understanding of its meaning on the part of the person baptized is not in keeping with Christ's commandment to make disciples and baptize them, so it could in effect, be "invalid." I think the notion that baptism is a meaningless ritual done to make the person feel better is definitely invalid. Baptism is a commandment of Christ, not meaningless or optional, and not something done just to get it out of the way.

It does not confer salvation, but it is done as a blessing in the sense that the person baptized is blessed and the people who are in the baptizing congregation are blessed by it.

[GreenEyedLady]

a girl at church got saved and will be baptised very quickly, I am trying to understand this as she had no Bible background.


James

Niether did the Gentiles!
HA. That is how simple is it suppose to be. AMEN and GLORY be to God!

[ChiRho]

I don't think I've ever heard a Baptist or Anabaptist use the word "validity" in connection with baptism. I don't think "valid" and "invalid" are categories that even come into play WRT the Baptist or Anabaptist view of baptism. ISTM, "valid" is a legal term having to do with whether or not a legal act confers a particular legal status. If it is sufficiently defective, it is considered invalid, and does not confer the legal status. For example, a legal marriage requires the consent of the bride and groom, each of whom is eligible to marry, and certain formalities that vary from time to time and place to place. If the bride or groom is already married to someone else (assuming only one marriage at a time is allowed) the marriage may later be declared invalid. Although it appeared to affect the status of the bride and groom as a married couple, in reality it did not because of a fatal defect. Baptists and Anabaptists do not view baptism as conferring a legal status, so the concept of validity does not really apply to it.

It's an interesting concept. I don't know whether anyone else might have something different to say about this.

I was using "validity" in the sense of which party, God or man, makes Baptism Baptism. More in the sense of "genuineness". The previous posts were dealing with which methods are correct to allow for a correct Baptism. Questions such as "should the sinner be cognizant?" "How much (or little) instruction should be given to the catechumen?" are all questions dealing with proper modes of Baptism, are they not? And in that, the underlying question is "What is Baptism and what (or who or Who) makes Baptism Baptism?" Correct?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Crazy Liz]

I was using "validity" in the sense of which party, God or man, makes Baptism Baptism. More in the sense of "genuineness". The previous posts were dealing with which methods are correct to allow for a correct Baptism. Questions such as "should the sinner be cognizant?" "How much (or little) instruction should be given to the catechumen?" are all questions dealing with proper modes of Baptism, are they not?

Yes, but propriety or regularity do not necessarily affect validity, if validity is an issue Note that the questions above have all been framed in terms of "should," not in terms of "must."

And in that, the underlying question is "What is Baptism and what (or who or Who) makes Baptism Baptism?" Correct?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

A Catholic might well disagree with a Baptist or Anabaptist about this. As I said before, Baptists and Anabaptists hold that the value of baptism is entirely subjective. It is for this reason (although there are other, closely related rationales) that infant baptism is not practiced. It is not possible for this subjective effect to exist when the person is unaware of it, as an infant.

Some Baptists and Anabaptists have said that if the subjective intent on the part of the person being baptized is absent, the person "does not get baptized, but just gets wet." OTOH, if the subjective intent is present, but there is some irregularity (for example, baptism by sprinkling or pouring, rather than by immersion) most Baptists and Anabaptists would just say it was an irregular baptism. Because the subjective aspect is emphasized, such a person may, for the sake of others who might be offended by the irregularity, go through a second baptism to regularize it. People might argue about which of these was the person's "real" baptism, but if you were to ask a theologically sophisticated Baptist or Anabaptist, they will generally say either that the person's "real" baptism was the first one with the subjective intent, and the second was a reaffirmation in regular form, or may give some other rationale, but probably they really would think the whole question was just a silly speculation. To say one must be "real" or "valid" and the other not would imply something objectively happens, and
Baptists and Anabaptists do not believe anything objectively happens by baptism.

[Snow Angel]

Quote#2.Since I don't believe baptism is regenerative or necessary for salvation.John the baptist, baptised Jesus,And if it good enough for him ,It's good enough fo me. :amen:

[ZiSunka]

To the advocates of believers' Baptism,

How can one be sure that they "fully" grasp the meaning of Holy Baptism before being Baptized, and how is one assured that they received it perfectly?

It seems to me, as I have been following this thread, that people have been arguing that Baptism's validity rests in the one being Baptized, instead of God. If this is the case, how could anyone be sure that their Baptism was valid?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

I think that adults, as a whole, have the capacity to understand that baptism is a symbol of beginning a new life in Christ, but infants do not. I'm not sure what you mean by "receive it perfectly." Those words don't have any meaning in relation to baptism. It's not something we receive, it's something we do to demonstrate our desire to follow Christ, who also was baptized as an adult, not an infant.

Baptism's validity does indeed rest upon the one being baptized, because that person has to make the conscious decision to leave behind their old life and start a new one. Babies don't need to start a new life, because they just started life, period. They have no sins to repent of, to put under the blood of Christ, and they don't have the capicity to understand the concept of substitution or redemption. Adults do, and that's why we don't baptize babies, only older children and adults who have professed saving faith in Christ.

Remember, baptism is not a magic trick in which our sins disappear while we are underwater, it is a ceremony of testimony that we have accepted the truth that we are sinners and Christ is the only way we can be forgiven.

[plastinationchild]

babies cant think.

[theseed]

I don't think I've ever heard a Baptist or Anabaptist use the word "validity" in connection with baptism. I don't think "valid" and "invalid" are categories that even come into play WRT the Baptist or Anabaptist view of baptism. ISTM, "valid" is a legal term having to do with whether or not a legal act confers a particular legal status. If it is sufficiently defective, it is considered invalid, and does not confer the legal status. For example, a legal marriage requires the consent of the bride and groom, each of whom is eligible to marry, and certain formalities that vary from time to time and place to place. If the bride or groom is already married to someone else (assuming only one marriage at a time is allowed) the marriage may later be declared invalid. Although it appeared to affect the status of the bride and groom as a married couple, in reality it did not because of a fatal defect. Baptists and Anabaptists do not view baptism as conferring a legal status, so the concept of validity does not really apply to it.

It's an interesting concept. I don't know whether anyone else might have something different to say about this.
"Valid" is s term that can be used validly and not be refering to legal issues. In fact, it is a statistical/psychological term has well. It can also be used of somebody who has physical disablilities, such as an invalid (pronounced short vowels, in-vil-id).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=valid

[Crazy Liz]

"Valid" is s term that can be used validly and not be refering to legal issues. In fact, it is a statistical/psychological term has well. It can also be used of somebody who has physical disablilities, such as an invalid (pronounced short vowels, in-vil-id).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=valid

OK. Can you apply one of those definitions to baptism?

[ChiRho]

Yes, but propriety or regularity do not necessarily affect validity, if validity is an issue Note that the questions above have all been framed in terms of "should," not in terms of "must."

Do you believe that there is any objective criteria for Holy Baptism?


A Catholic might well disagree with a Baptist or Anabaptist about this. As I said before, Baptists and Anabaptists hold that the value of baptism is entirely subjective. It is for this reason (although there are other, closely related rationales) that infant baptism is not practiced. It is not possible for this subjective effect to exist when the person is unaware of it, as an infant.

So, are you asserting that "infant Baptism" is an incorrect Baptism and therefore not Baptism at all? How, if self-awareness is the key, are we sure that we, as an individual, are fully aware of Baptism? If we are pledging ourselves to follow Christ and Baptism is this outward pledge, what happens when we sin? Do we return to the Font and try to make this pledge again...and again...and again? If we do not, are we liars or frauds?

Lutherans think of sin in terms of sickness or an infection that acts out through our faculties and results in actual sins, but the real problem, the source of our sin is our perverted nature. For us, such a pledge, would be a hollow, empty promise that we could not and would not keep.

Some Baptists and Anabaptists have said that if the subjective intent on the part of the person being baptized is absent, the person "does not get baptized, but just gets wet." OTOH, if the subjective intent is present, but there is some irregularity (for example, baptism by sprinkling or pouring, rather than by immersion) most Baptists and Anabaptists would just say it was an irregular baptism. Because the subjective aspect is emphasized, such a person may, for the sake of others who might be offended by the irregularity, go through a second baptism to regularize it. People might argue about which of these was the person's "real" baptism, but if you were to ask a theologically sophisticated Baptist or Anabaptist, they will generally say either that the person's "real" baptism was the first one with the subjective intent, and the second was a reaffirmation in regular form, or may give some other rationale, but probably they really would think the whole question was just a silly speculation. To say one must be "real" or "valid" and the other not would imply something objectively happens, and
Baptists and Anabaptists do not believe anything objectively happens by baptism.

So Holy Baptism is essentially meaningless? Just wondering if I got the gist of what you said.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ZiSunka]

So Holy Baptism is essentially meaningless? Just wondering if I got the gist of what you said.

This is a popular way of thinking right now, based mostly on a misinterpretation of the teachings of Charles Stanley, but no, baptism is not meaningless. It doesn't confer redemption or salvation, but it's not meaningless either. It has value in that it is a public declaration of leaving the old life of sin and beginning the new life of dedication to God.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." 2Co 5:17 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=2co+5:17&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1)

Babies can't start a new life of dedication to God because they are unable to fathom their lost condition and choose to turn their lives over and become new creations.

[theseed]

OK. Can you apply one of those definitions to baptism?
Yes, a baptism can be illigitiment if if is not biblical. The Bible teaches that we only enters God's covenant of grace by a renewed heart. And how do we know that? Based on a profession of faith. Everybody that is baptized in the book of Acts believes first, and then is baptism. So, if we don't baptize the right way, then we are not being obediant to our Lord's command. Therefore, baptism must be a valid baptism.

[ZiSunka]

After doing a search of the Bible, I cannot find one instance of infant baptism, or of anyone being baptized without first having made an expression of faith.

Furthermore, the basis of baptism is the cleansing wash that was done by people to complete periods of time in which they were "unclean" spiritually. It was a command to adults, not infants.

[BT]

Oh I know what they'll pull out now.... the old "whole household" argument

[ZiSunka]

Yep, I'm expecting that next, too.

[seebs]

Oh I know what they'll pull out now.... the old "whole household" argument

Well, it seems plausible to me. I mean, keep in mind, the early Christians were often Jews. Jews did the ritual to make male babies part of their tribe at the venerable age of 8 days, which strikes me as early enough that it's probably before the baby has full awareness... They might reasonably have assumed that baptism worked the same way.

I don't know whether baptising infants actually does anything, but then, I don't know whether water baptism as such does anything anyway. It's us doing something which we express as best we know how, I figure.

[theseed]

Well, it seems plausible to me. I mean, keep in mind, the early Christians were often Jews. Jews did the ritual to make male babies part of their tribe at the venerable age of 8 days, which strikes me as early enough that it's probably before the baby has full awareness... They might reasonably have assumed that baptism worked the same way.
If there were babies in those "whole households" then they would have been old enough to believe. The Bible says that much.

[seebs]

I wouldn't be surprised if early Christians, like the Jews they were a splinter group of, simply assumed that kids were "believers" because you raised them that way. I don't think the age of accountability was a concept anyone had come up with yet...

[theseed]

In summary, the accounts of Lydia's and Stephanas' households are inconclusive, while the accounts of Cornelius', Crispus', and the jailer's households actually point to conscious belief and regeneration before baptism. Therefore, I conclude that the weight of the household baptisms leans toward confessors' baptism.
http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html#3

[Crazy Liz]

Do you believe that there is any objective criteria for Holy Baptism?

I have no idea what you mean by "objective criteria." What about baptism do you think we are judging or evaluating?

cri·te·ri·on ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(kr-tîr-n)
n. pl. cri·te·ri·a (-tîr-) or cri·te·ri·ons
A standard, rule, or test on which a judgment or decision can be based. See Synonyms at standard.


[Greek kritrion, from krits, judge, from krnein, to separate, judge. See krei- in Indo-European Roots.]
cri·teri·al (-l) adj.
Usage Note: Like the analogous etymological plurals agenda and data, criteria is widely used as a singular form. Unlike them, however, it is not yet acceptable in that use.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.



criterion


n 1: a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; "they set the measure for all subsequent work" [syn: standard, measure, touchstone] 2: the ideal in terms of which something can be judged; "they live by the standards of their community" [syn: standard]



Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
---http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=criterion

So, are you asserting that "infant Baptism" is an incorrect Baptism and therefore not Baptism at all?

No I am not asserting that. I am telling you the perspective on baptism held by the majority of Baptists and Anabaptists. Since you don't understand the perspective from which Baptists and Anabaptists think about baptism, you are asking absurd questions.

How, if self-awareness is the key, are we sure that we, as an individual, are fully aware of Baptism? If we are pledging ourselves to follow Christ and Baptism is this outward pledge, what happens when we sin? Do we return to the Font and try to make this pledge again...and again...and again? If we do not, are we liars or frauds?

You will find some variation in Baptist and Anabaptist practice in this area. However, baptism "again and again" is not encouraged.

I think "fully aware" is a poor choice of words that the vast majority of Baptists and Anabaptists would reject. Obviously, there is a continuum of awareness. Since an infant is not aware at all, we don't baptize babies.

I think the better view, that of the Anabaptists, is that a sober and deliberate voluntary commitment to Christ and to be a responsible member of a church. "Sober and voluntary commitment" would be much better than "fully aware," for these and other reasons.

Lutherans think of sin in terms of sickness or an infection that acts out through our faculties and results in actual sins, but the real problem, the source of our sin is our perverted nature. For us, such a pledge, would be a hollow, empty promise that we could not and would not keep.

I think you are confused about this, too. A commitment to Christ and to Christ's church is not a pledge of sinless perfection, but to accept the help of God through our brothers and sisters when we fall short, and to offer it to them, as well.

So Holy Baptism is essentially meaningless? Just wondering if I got the gist of what you said.

It has meaning. If we thought it was meaningless we would either not do it at all or do it to anybody, including infants.

[Crazy Liz]

Yes, a baptism can be illigitiment if if is not biblical. The Bible teaches that we only enters God's covenant of grace by a renewed heart. And how do we know that? Based on a profession of faith. Everybody that is baptized in the book of Acts believes first, and then is baptism. So, if we don't baptize the right way, then we are not being obediant to our Lord's command. Therefore, baptism must be a valid baptism.

Using "valid' as a synonym for "legitimate" is still an application of the legal definition, not the statistical definition or the physical one.

However, since I said most Baptists and Anabaptists don't use terms such as "valid" or "legitimate" to describe baptism, you have established that some do. Feel free to discuss the concept of "validity" or "legitimacy" with Chi Rho. I was trying to explain to him why I don't think about baptism in those terms.

[Crazy Liz]

If there were babies in those "whole households" then they would have been old enough to believe. The Bible says that much.

Where?

[theseed]

Where?
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=13556309#post13556309

[BT]

Well, it seems plausible to me. I mean, keep in mind, the early Christians were often Jews. Jews did the ritual to make male babies part of their tribe at the venerable age of 8 days, which strikes me as early enough that it's probably before the baby has full awareness... They might reasonably have assumed that baptism worked the same way.

The difference is that under the Old Covenant they were commanded to circumcize on the 8th day. The commandment for baptism under the New Covenant follows belief. A baby can't believe, because a baby can't conceive. Baptisms that took place in the OT were for the priestly roles, hence the NT believer priest takes on a new form of the OT ritual. They might have assumed that baptism worked in the same way and were later corrected by Paul. So whether or not they baptised in err has no weight on us because we have received the instruction and know better. I mean Simon the sorcerer tried to "buy" the gifts of the Spirit. He was in error. He probably didn't realize that he was, but we, having gained the understanding, know that he was. Should we then attempt to buy the gifts of the Spirit just because someone in the beginning of the church tried to in err?

When the Ethiopian was met on the road in Acts 8 did the Spirit instruct Philip to go and baptize him? No he went to him and "... preached unto him Jesus" (Acts 8:35). So they continue down the road and the Ethiopian sees some water and says "... what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (Acts 8:36) The answer is "... If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:37) and he answers "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." and so the chariot stops and he gets baptized. We have the clear order here. Belief proceeds baptism.

[Snow Angel]

I think a person should wait till they are old enough to know what
they are doing,before they get baptized.I was 12 when I was baptized,I have
never been re-baptized because I have always felt the lord is with me.My two
brothers were baptized 5 & 6 and they were re-baptized when they were men.
God Bless. When Satan is knocking at your door, simply say,
Jesus, could you get that for me?!! :wave:

[ZiSunka]

I agree whole heartedly with BT. The infant circumcision ritual was precisely described as being something that was done to infants on the eighth day of their lives, or to strangers wanting to convert. Baptism, on the other hand, is described as something done to adults. Everywhere it is described in detail, it is done upon a confession of faith, and never something just done to everyone or to infants. Since Jesus commanded baptism, if he had wanted it to be done to infants, he would have said so, based on God's explicitness about wanting circumcision to be done on infants.

[seebs]

I think it is possible that one could reasonably infer that baptism was assumed to follow the same rules as circumcision; you do your own children, but newcomers have to make a serious effort to join the tribe before they're given the ritual.

I don't necessarily think this was the intent... But it's not stupid or crazy to infer that, even if it's wrong.

[ZiSunka]

I think it is possible that one could reasonably infer that baptism was assumed to follow the same rules as circumcision; you do your own children, but newcomers have to make a serious effort to join the tribe before they're given the ritual.

I don't necessarily think this was the intent... But it's not stupid or crazy to infer that, even if it's wrong.

I think it's a huge stretch to make that inference on the basis of silence. Babies aren't mentioned at all anywhere, OT or NT, regarding baptism, but neither are donkeys, monkeys, dogs or fish. Some of those are sure to have been part of the households we are talking about. Should we then assume that because they were members of the household that was baptized, that the animals got a dunking, too? In every instance where the details are given to us about someone's baptism, it is always adults baptized after a declaration of faith (which is why it is so important to have Acts 8:37 in the Bible and not editted out), never to a child or an infant on the basis of a parents faith. Circumcision is a whole different proceedure than baptism and was done on infants to lesson the chance of infection (babies weren't diapered back then and they were circumcized well before they would have been exposed to any yeast or viral infection that could cause sepsis). It was for the health and protection of the child that circumcision was done so early. It was more than a commitment of the parents to raise the child as a Jew, it was the way God prescribed to prevent a child from accidentally dying from their own circumcision.