Infant Baptism ('Christnings') vs Adult baptisms

[sk3ptic]

I was reading through Romans the other day and a passage struck me and made me think:
'Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised' - Romans 2:25

Could this be said to a certain extent for Infant baptism? After all, although prayers and affirmations are said on behalf of the baby/child by their parents/godparents, the child is not usually old enough to comprehend what is happening to them or to make that decision for themselves to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
What if they strayed away from Christianity as they got older? Does that make their baptism void?

I know historically infant baptisms or Christenings were often performed by families because at a time when the infant mortality rate was very high, they were worried that if their child wasn't baptised, they would die a sin filled child, ending up in hell or purgatory.

Many of my friends, family and acquaintances have had their babies baptised, even though they have never even been to church in their lives before. I personally think this is quite hypocritical and disrespectful to the Christian faith as the vicars/congregation would know full well that the child's parents wouldn't bring their child up in the Christian faith (besides the general morals also followed by a secular society and other faiths). I know this is the case for weddings and funerals too, but weddings and funerals play a major role in secular society (people love each other and want to legally share their lives together and it is human nature to pay last respects to the dead and bury them peacefully). However, for a non believer what is the point in a Christening when you don't believe in Jesus Christ and that he will forgive your sins?

In the Bible, a baptism is described as a symbol of repenting of your sins. How can a baby be able to repent of their sins if they have yet to comprehend small things, let alone the big task of supposedly understanding that you were born with sin?

Surely it is better to wait until the child is older and able to make that decision of whether they want to become a Christian and believe in Jesus, so they can fully comprehend what they are doing?

Can anyone explain to me why they think Infant Baptism or Adult Baptism is the 'right' way?

 

[Hestha]

Although male circumcision is often associated with Christianity and Judaism, there are men who circumcise themselves for health reasons. It doesn't really have to be religious, though religion is a very strong motivator for circumcision.

Some churches do perform infant baptism, and some churches do perform adult baptism. The baptismal rituals vary across denominations.

To answer your question about babies' sinning, I think one must understand the concept of sin and how a person, as innocent as little baby, can commit one.

If the baptised child strayed away from Christianity as he grows older, then, as long as he does NOT break the law (one of God's laws), he may remain circumcised physically and spiritually. If he does break the law, then I suppose he will just be physically circumcised but not spiritually. Just my opinion.

 

[bling]

1. John the Baptist’s baptism: John was baptizing as a ritualistic outward sign that the person being immersed in water was committing to the doctrine of God forgive them somehow as a result of the Messiah providing a way. It was similar to the baptizing of women that had been converted to Judaism. The person would confess assume God would forgive and would repent out of Love for God (…he that is forgiven much will Love much&#8230.
2. Christian water baptism: This is water immersion to be a physical outward representation of what had or is happening spiritually in the person being baptized. It is mainly to help the individual being baptized to better grasp what is going on, but can “witness” to others observing the baptism. It has the elements of going down under the water (burying the old man), placing your dependence in another the person baptizing you (surrendering your life to God), being washed (having your sins washed away), rising out of the water (rising from the dead), and stepping forth out onto the earth (a new person). It is also a sign of your humility since it is a humbling act anyone can simple allow someone to do to them (so not a work) and humility is needed to accept charity (God’s free gift of undeserving forgiveness). To refuse Christian water baptism when it is readily available would probably mean you are not ready to handle responsibility like having the indwelling Holy Spirit.
3. Holy Spirit Baptism: There appears to be different “portions/measures” of the Holy Spirit: Christ had a huge continuous portion and could do anything and give the miraculous portion of the Spirit to others, the apostles had a large portion, but it may have come and left them and they could lay hands on people giving them a miraculous portion of the Spirit, some first century Christians had a miraculous portion of the Holy Spirit for at least some time period. All Christians seem to have the indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit (this is the most important portion). It appears the earliest Christians did not fully comprehend the power and mission of the indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit and to begin with refer to the Holy Spirit only when outwardly visible as they were experiencing themselves. As the Church matures they came to a greater understanding of the gentile’s position, the second coming, the new covenant, and the indwelling portion of the Spirit.
For a better understanding of Holy Spirit baptism, look what Peter says in Acts 11: 15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
And the description in Acts 10: 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
This type baptism, was not the normal since Peter had to remember way back to get a similar occurrence. This type of Baptism Peter describes as Holy Spirit Baptism and fitting John’s prophecy. If this had been the norm than there would be no reason to think back or reference it for those in Jerusalem. They were also water baptized by Peter so both happened to them at this time and it was not either/or.
John’s baptism and teaching did not include the indwelling Holy Spirit, since that was not available to the masses until Pentecost and Acts 2:38. The miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit could come with Holy Spirit baptism that occurred Acts 2, 4 and 10, or with the laying on of the apostles’ hands or it can come whenever the Spirit needs it to come (I do not have a problem with this). Also look at Acts 8. Philip has outward miraculous power from the Holy Spirit and is preaching truth or the Spirit would not be with him. The Bible says the people believe and were baptized (water) so I believe what the Bible says. Acts 8: 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. The apostles are needed to provide outward miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of their hands unless the Holy Spirit comes down directly like in Acts 2, 4 or 10. The Christian at this time and Luke does not edit or comment on their thinking, express the Holy Spirit coming just one way and that is with outward miraculous signs. The Holy Spirit is also coming to all saved Christians in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit that is not seen by others readily through miracles. This “laying on of hands” to receive the outward miraculous portion of the Holy Spirit is never revered to as “baptism” the only “baptism” of the Holy Spirit is found in Acts, 2, 4 and 10. When Peter talks about Cornelius to the Jews in Jerusalem in Acts 11 being “baptized” with the Holy Spirit, he has to reach back to the begin of the Church in Acts 2 and possible Acts 4 to give a similar example of Holy Spirit baptism, suggesting it was not the norm. If “baptism” of the Holy Spirit was happening all the time and every time then there would be no need for Peter to remember back to the beginning.
4. Conjunctions in the Greek: Between Acts 19 verse 5 and 6 there is a conjunction (and) which means these are two separate acts and not the same act being expressed two separate ways. In verse 5 they are baptized (this would mean Christian water baptism) and in verse 6 Paul is laying hands on them so they can receive a miraculous portion of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was reading through Romans the other day and a passage struck me and made me think:
'Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised' - Romans 2:25

Could this be said to a certain extent for Infant baptism? After all, although prayers and affirmations are said on behalf of the baby/child by their parents/godparents, the child is not usually old enough to comprehend what is happening to them or to make that decision for themselves to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
What if they strayed away from Christianity as they got older? Does that make their baptism void?

I know historically infant baptisms or Christenings were often performed by families because at a time when the infant mortality rate was very high, they were worried that if their child wasn't baptised, they would die a sin filled child, ending up in hell or purgatory.

Many of my friends, family and acquaintances have had their babies baptised, even though they have never even been to church in their lives before. I personally think this is quite hypocritical and disrespectful to the Christian faith as the vicars/congregation would know full well that the child's parents wouldn't bring their child up in the Christian faith (besides the general morals also followed by a secular society and other faiths). I know this is the case for weddings and funerals too, but weddings and funerals play a major role in secular society (people love each other and want to legally share their lives together and it is human nature to pay last respects to the dead and bury them peacefully). However, for a non believer what is the point in a Christening when you don't believe in Jesus Christ and that he will forgive your sins?

In the Bible, a baptism is described as a symbol of repenting of your sins. How can a baby be able to repent of their sins if they have yet to comprehend small things, let alone the big task of supposedly understanding that you were born with sin?

Surely it is better to wait until the child is older and able to make that decision of whether they want to become a Christian and believe in Jesus, so they can fully comprehend what they are doing?

Can anyone explain to me why they think Infant Baptism or Adult Baptism is the 'right' way?

You're making several assumptions, I think, about Baptism which neither the New Testament nor Christianity has.

For example you are seeing Baptism as "a symbol of repenting of your sins", even stating that this is "in the Bible"; the problem with this is that this isn't actually found in the Bible, and this has never been the historical Christian position.

According to traditional, historic Christian teaching, Baptism is an efficacious act whereby a person is mystically united to Jesus Christ, it is real participation in Christ's death and resurrection, and makes us members of Christ--and thus members of Christ's Body, the Church, children of God, forgiven of all our sins (and so on and so forth). Romans 6, for example, spells this out fairly straightforwardly, as does the consistent witness of the entire New Testament.

The reason why Baptism (whether of infants or of adult converts) doesn't fit the bill of Romans 2 is down to several important facts:

1) Baptism isn't part of the Law, it wasn't given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, but was instituted by Christ for the Christian Church.

2) Baptism isn't Law at all, but is Grace and Gospel; in other words, Baptism is not seen as a human work, whether of the baptized or the one officiating the Baptism; but is in fact a Divine Work, an act of God's invisible grace through visible and tangible means. It is God who does the baptizing, not man.

3) Since Baptism isn't Law, but Gospel, it is efficacious. That is, it accomplishes what it promises. Baptism promises us union with Christ, forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and all the glorious things of the Gospel--and it causes these things to be real because God has so promised that whoever is baptized has all these things.

This is why Christians have historically baptized infants as well as adult converts: It is not a matter of personal choice, of personal activity, but of Divine Grace working through God's own instituted Means, which is done through the Church for the sake of "you and your children, and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself." (Acts 2:39).

We baptize infants because we pledge to bring up our children in Christ. Now it is up to them whether they shall continue on in the faith or not, but if parents love their children and desire that they receive all the good things of God, there is no good reason to restrict the gift of Baptism to their children. This is how the Church sees Baptism, a gift given impartially to all for their own sake, because God is the God who desires the reconciliation, salvation, and redemption of every human being--we do not deny Baptism to anyone, we do not restrict Baptism from anyone. It is for everyone, "for you and your children, and for all who are far off". We have been commanded by Christ to go out into the world and make disciples of all nations, "baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and instructing them in all that [He] taught".

We don't force Baptism on the children of unbelieving parents, nor force Baptism upon adults because this would be rude. The Gospel is not to be forceful, but gentle.

Also, you ask: "What if they strayed away from Christianity as they got older? Does that make their baptism void?" To which Christianity has answered: No. In fact nothing can render our Baptism void,

"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39)

Once baptized, always baptized. For Baptism is not contingent upon the faithfulness of the baptized, but on the God who gracious condescends to meet us, embrace us, and name us His own in the waters of Baptism. One can renounce their Baptism, but their Baptism never renounces them.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LantanaAnna]

Follow what Jesus did, baptize the adults, bless the children.

You hit the nail on the head when you said children cannot repent.

 

[DCJazz]

I was reading through Romans the other day and a passage struck me and made me think:
'Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised' - Romans 2:25

Could this be said to a certain extent for Infant baptism? After all, although prayers and affirmations are said on behalf of the baby/child by their parents/godparents, the child is not usually old enough to comprehend what is happening to them or to make that decision for themselves to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
What if they strayed away from Christianity as they got older? Does that make their baptism void?

I know historically infant baptisms or Christenings were often performed by families because at a time when the infant mortality rate was very high, they were worried that if their child wasn't baptised, they would die a sin filled child, ending up in hell or purgatory.

Many of my friends, family and acquaintances have had their babies baptised, even though they have never even been to church in their lives before. I personally think this is quite hypocritical and disrespectful to the Christian faith as the vicars/congregation would know full well that the child's parents wouldn't bring their child up in the Christian faith (besides the general morals also followed by a secular society and other faiths). I know this is the case for weddings and funerals too, but weddings and funerals play a major role in secular society (people love each other and want to legally share their lives together and it is human nature to pay last respects to the dead and bury them peacefully). However, for a non believer what is the point in a Christening when you don't believe in Jesus Christ and that he will forgive your sins?

In the Bible, a baptism is described as a symbol of repenting of your sins. How can a baby be able to repent of their sins if they have yet to comprehend small things, let alone the big task of supposedly understanding that you were born with sin?

Surely it is better to wait until the child is older and able to make that decision of whether they want to become a Christian and believe in Jesus, so they can fully comprehend what they are doing?

Can anyone explain to me why they think Infant Baptism or Adult Baptism is the 'right' way?

You've absolutely hit the nail on the head with this. This is one of the main reasons that Infant baptism is useless; baptism is the choice of the individual who has already accepted Christ. Keep in mind baptism does not save us; it is Christ that does that. But baptism should always be done after acceptance of Christ's salvation... and a baby cannot make that choice yet, nor can anyone else make it for that baby.

The only baptism is when you're old enough to comprehend the full implications of sin and Christ's sacrifice, in my opinion. I don't see anywhere in the bible that promotes infant baptism.

 

[Radagast]

In the Bible, a baptism is described as a symbol of repenting of your sins.

It's described that way for adult converts. It is also described (Colossians 2:11-12) as a New Testament analogy to circumcision (which was done to infants).

Those Christians who perform adult baptism tend to emphasise the first aspect, while those that baptise infants emphasise the second.

 

[jpcedotal]

I do not think there is anything wrong with dedicating an infant to the Lord publicly...which is really the parents publicly agreeing to raise the child in a Christian home.

Infant baptism is getting the cart before the horse. Instead of dunking the child, the parents should rededicate themselves publicly to Jesus and raise the child correctly.

 

[hedrick]

There are two different reasons for baptizing infants. The traditional approach assumed that salvation is so closely tied to baptism that it was dangerous not to baptize an infant. If they died before baptism there was question about their status. I don't think that's quite current Catholic doctrine, and it may always have been more "popular piety" than real, but it's pretty clear that it's a common popular feeling.

Protestants who baptize infants are those who emphasize God's role in salvation. Baptism represents God placing his seal on us, as a sign that he calls us from before we are conceived, and we are his from the beginning. Thus children (Calvinsts would say, elect children) are very real members of God's people, and Christ died for them just as much as for adults. Adult baptism is associated with people who emphasize our decision. For them, baptism is a sign that we have repented and accepted Christ as our Lord. My (somewhat oversimplified) summary is that the question is whether it is a sign of our acceptance of Christ or Christ's acceptance of us.

 

[DCJazz]

I personally just don't see the point of an infant baptism. As has been said by another poster here, the parents should be the ones rededicating themselves to the Lord, and they are the ones ultimately responsible for raising their child.