Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[jmcrae]

While in college, I lived next to two guys who were raised Catholic but who were then both atheists. I can’t tell you their whole story but forcing religious ritual on very young children is not always as helpful as you think. They need to be taught, but it ultimately is their decision, not yours.

It’s likely that they were not exposed to enough Church, rather than that they were exposed to too much Church. After all, if they weren’t there long enough to understand what was going on, then it makes sense that they would get frustrated or bored and become atheists, or something else.

I’ve noticed that kids who are taken to Mass every day (not just Sundays) from an early age tend not to lose their faith when they enter their teen years. But those who are dragged kicking and screaming to Sunday Mass, arriving late, standing in the back where they can’t even see or hear anything properly, and then leaving early, tend to rebel against the Church later on in life, because they were never there long enough at a time to actually get into it and really understand what was happening on the Altar.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<< I can’t tell you their whole story but forcing religious ritual on very young children is not always as helpful as you think. >>

When your child doesn’t feel like taking a bath, what do you do? Generally, you FORCE him to take one, and that won’t make him become a bathless behemoth when he grows up.

When your child doesn’t feel like going to school, what do you do? Generally, you FORCE him to take go (assuming he’s not ill), and that won’t make him become an enemy of the school system when he grows up.

When your child doesn’t feel like going to bed, what do you do? Generally, you FORCE him to go, and that won’t make him stay up 24 hours a day when he grows up.

When your child is very sick but won’t go to the doctor, what do you do? Generally, you FORCE him there, and that won’t make him become an enemy of health care when he grows up.

When people say, “My parents forced religion on me, and that’s why I don’t go to church,” this is not the real reason they abandoned their faith. It’s a CONVENIENT EXCUSE.

 

[nonsumd]

Where did Jesus command you to do that? Chapter and verse, please. Or are you following some man-made tradition?

Phil, my brother in Christ, I can admire your zeal if not share all your doctrines.

Do you really want to be reminded that “Sola Scriptura” is itself a man-made tradition?

That the New Testament per se did not exist for many years, and that without an oral tradition transmitted by an ordained teaching authority we would not even know which of all the available books should be treated as Scripture?

This is a basic historical fact the dismissal of which I can no more understand in Sola Scriptura Protestants than I can understand how Mormons can hold to their beliefs about pre-Columbian America in the face of all the archaeological evidence. I am sorry to be so blunt.

Show me chapter and verse that the Bible teaches “Sola Scriptura” (and not verses that are actually about following the Jewish scriptures and do not exclude following oral tradition).

 

[Phil12123]

It’s likely that they were not exposed to enough Church, rather than that they were exposed to too much Church. After all, if they weren’t there long enough to understand what was going on, then it makes sense that they would get frustrated or bored and become atheists, or something else.

I’ve noticed that kids who are taken to Mass every day (not just Sundays) from an early age tend not to lose their faith when they enter their teen years. But those who are dragged kicking and screaming to Sunday Mass, arriving late, standing in the back where they can’t even see or hear anything properly, and then leaving early, tend to rebel against the Church later on in life, because they were never there long enough at a time to actually get into it and really understand what was happening on the Altar.

You may be right, although I think they grew up in Catholic parochial schools, so I would assume they had plenty of time there. In fact, I’ve heard some real horror stories about nuns and how they so severely disciplined students that you’d think they were army drill sergeants, rather than caring, loving instructors.

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, my brother in Christ, I can admire your zeal if not share all your doctrines.

Do you really want to be reminded that “Sola Scriptura” is itself a man-made tradition?

That the New Testament per se did not exist for many years, and that without an oral tradition transmitted by an ordained teaching authority we would not even know which of all the available books should be treated as Scripture?

This is a basic historical fact the dismissal of which I can no more understand in Sola Scriptura Protestants than I can understand how Mormons can hold to their beliefs about pre-Columbian America in the face of all the archaeological evidence. I am sorry to be so blunt.

Show me chapter and verse that the Bible teaches “Sola Scriptura” (and not verses that are actually about following the Jewish scriptures and do not exclude following oral tradition).

So, would you admit that there is no basis in Scripture that supports his baptizing his 2-year-old daughter? We must look elsewhere? And this is so even though we NOW have all the books that belong in the NT (regardless of how we got them)? We still have to look elsewhere for that support? We can’t just go by what Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, James, and Jude said or didn’t say?

 

[jmcrae]

**You may be right, although I think they grew up in Catholic parochial schools, so I would assume they had plenty of time there. In fact, I’ve heard some real horror stories about nuns and how they so severely disciplined students that you’d think they were army drill sergeants, rather than caring, loving instructors. **

I had some pretty strict discipline when I was a kid, too - one of our teachers actually broke a kid’s arm when she hit him with a blackboard pointer for talking back in class - and I went to public school; my teachers were mostly atheists or nominal Protestants.

I think strict, army-style discipline was just how things were done, back then. Certainly, I remember kids being sent to the office to get “the strap” - today, those teachers would be charged, and probably convicted, of assault and battery. Times were way different back then - I have a feeling that, however strict those nuns were, it was even worse in the public schools.

As I understand it, the curriculum in Catholic schools is exactly the same as the curriculum in the public schools - the only real difference as far as content is concerned is that they are taken to Mass from time to time, and have the option of attending Catechism classes at school, if they want to, and they are socially connected with their parish Church for things like youth groups, children’s choir, altar service, and that sort of thing - I know that many priests even today will call over to their parish school to see if any of the kids want to receive training as altar servers.

 

[jmcrae]

So, would you admit that there is no basis in Scripture that supports his baptizing his 2-year-old daughter? We must look elsewhere? And this is so even though we NOW have all the books that belong in the NT (regardless of how we got them)? We still have to look elsewhere for that support? We can’t just go by what Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, James, and Jude said or didn’t say?

Nobody has ever claimed that the Bible contains every detail of every ritual that Christians must follow. I don’t think it is possible to figure out from Scripture alone who is eligible to be baptized, or even how the baptism is to be performed - these things come down to us through the traditions of the Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

So, would you admit that there is no basis in Scripture that supports his baptizing his 2-year-old daughter? We must look elsewhere? And this is so even though we NOW have all the books that belong in the NT (regardless of how we got them)? We still have to look elsewhere for that support? We can’t just go by what Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, James, and Jude said or didn’t say?

That’s where the whole households comes in. It Scriptural, Historical, OT Pre-figured, and consistent.

The rejection of Infant at Baptism is still a brand-spankin’ new doctrine.

 

[NotWorthy]

This may be a good time to summarize:

A) Circumcision, done on 8 day olds pre-figured Baptism.
B) Jesus taught for others to bring the children to Him.
How did Jesus invite adults? “Come to Me…”
How did Jesus invite infants? “Bring the Children to Me…”
C) The Apostles practiced infant Baptism with whole households being baptized.
D) The Church in the 1st century and every century since then practiced infant Baptism
E) The teachings of the baptism of infants has remain unchanged.

 

[jmcrae]

All true.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Nobody has ever claimed that the Bible contains every detail of every ritual that Christians must follow.

I claim that. I think that all that is necessary for salvation can be found in the scriptures. While there may be more beyond the scriptures that are helpful for communicating truths about God or enabling us to grow in our practice of our faith, I do not find any of that to be essential, only beneficial. (And I’m not always sure about just how beneficial it is either.)

 

[Singinbeauty]

The rejection of Infant at Baptism is still a brand-spankin’ new doctrine.

So is the assumption of Mary… what’s your point?

What is the point of baptizing someone who doesn’t even know Christ and may eventually grow up to reject Him? Then the baptism was all for nothing.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

What is the point of baptizing someone who doesn’t even know Christ and may eventually grow up to reject Him? Then the baptism was all for nothing.

On what basis do you say that? It is still both valid AND, IMO, efficatious.

First you have the proclamation of God’s grace, specifically, I believe, his prevenient grace, not regenerating grace.

Then you have the affirmation of faith of the entire congregation who bears witness to their common faith.

And you have the declaration of this person’s place in the larger family of God. Of course he must continue to grow up in it, and not fall away. But that is a matter quite apart from baptism. If the person ultimately turns his/her back on God and walks away from his/her salvation that is the exercise of free will, but it does not reduce the value of baptism in any way.

 

[NotWorthy]

So is the assumption of Mary… what’s your point?

What is the point of baptizing someone who doesn’t even know Christ and may eventually grow up to reject Him? Then the baptism was all for nothing.

My first point is that the thread is not about the Assumption of Mary, something that has been taught for at least 1500 years.

The point of baptizing someone who doesn’t even know Christ and may eventually grow up to reject Him is that the OT Scriptures prophecied it, Jesus taught it, the Apostles practiced it, and the Church took part in the Sacred Tradition, from the very first century.

But, following your line of logic, what’s the point of baptizing **anyone **who may eventually reject Christ? Then the Baptism was all for nothing.

 

[jmcrae]

I claim that. I think that all that is necessary for salvation can be found in the scriptures. While there may be more beyond the scriptures that are helpful for communicating truths about God or enabling us to grow in our practice of our faith, I do not find any of that to be essential, only beneficial. (And I’m not always sure about just how beneficial it is either.)

How do you know how to perform a proper baptism? Is it in the Scriptures? (If so, where? I’ve never found it.)

If it’s not in the Scriptures, how do you know you’re doing it correctly - and more importantly, how do you know that, say, the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Oneness Pentecostals, are doing it incorrectly?

 

[jmcrae]

So is the assumption of Mary… what’s your point?

What is the point of baptizing someone who doesn’t even know Christ and may eventually grow up to reject Him? Then the baptism was all for nothing.

Adults can and have fallen away from their faith after being baptized, too. I think it’s actually easier for kids to start off their lives in the Christian faith, because they don’t have any bad habits to unlearn - and they are a lot more likely to come back to it as adults if they fall away during their teen years, than they are to discover it for themselves for the first time, as adults.

I also find it mind-blowing that any Christian parents would not share the Gospel message, including baptism, with their own children on the basis that it should be up to the children after they leave home and become adults. That’s kind of like saying, I won’t feed my child vegetables; I will let him decide when he is an adult whether he wants to eat vegetables; I don’t have the right to force good health on to my child.

 

[Singinbeauty]

My first point is that the thread is not about the Assumption of Mary, something that has been taught for at least 1500 years.

Good first point. BUT it wasn’t DOCTRINE until the 1950’s. That is why I put it on this thread. To show that even though something may be ‘new’ (as you claim non-infant baptism to be) doesn’t mean it’s less valid.

The point of baptizing someone who doesn’t even know Christ and may eventually grow up to reject Him is that the OT Scriptures prophecied it, Jesus taught it, the Apostles practiced it, and the Church took part in the Sacred Tradition, from the very first century.

I can see your point…

But, following your line of logic, what’s the point of baptizing **anyone **who may eventually reject Christ? Then the Baptism was all for nothing.

So be it, but at least the person who was baptised as a conscience and full decision and declaration would know the consequence of it. I think the baptism means more when YOU made the decision…

 

[Singinbeauty]

Adults can and have fallen away from their faith after being baptized, too. I think it’s actually easier for kids to start off their lives in the Christian faith, because they don’t have any bad habits to unlearn - and they are a lot more likely to come back to it as adults if they fall away during their teen years, than they are to discover it for themselves for the first time, as adults.

I agree. But being baptized as a baby is imposing the decision to follow Christ on someone who may not even grow to want to. Baptism, as I have learned it, is about the profession of Faith of which a baby can’t make that decision.

I also find it mind-blowing that any Christian parents would not share the Gospel message, including baptism, with their own children on the basis that it should be up to the children after they leave home and become adults. That’s kind of like saying, I won’t feed my child vegetables; I will let him decide when he is an adult whether he wants to eat vegetables; I don’t have the right to force good health on to my child.

It’s not about waiting until they are an adult. It’s about waiting until they can know what the baptism is about. Your analogy would fit better in bringing the child to church, even if they don’t want to, to learn about God and His wonderfulness then they can know what He has done for them. Many children make that decision to get baptized when they have heard and learned the Word of God.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

How do you know how to perform a proper baptism? Is it in the Scriptures? (If so, where? I’ve never found it.)

If it’s not in the Scriptures, how do you know you’re doing it correctly - and more importantly, how do you know that, say, the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Oneness Pentecostals, are doing it incorrectly?

I don’t “know” that I am doing it “correctly”. I only know that I am doing it in accordance with the traditions and teachings passed on to me.

Of course I know that I am commanded to baptize. But I do not quibble with people with regard to the rituals by which it is done. If I baptize by sprinkling and another person does by immersion, I don’t say that one is right and the other wrong. If one baptizes in the name of one other than Jesus, then I do not recognize that as Christian baptism; but I arrive at that as a point of logic, not out of scripture. Remember, I never claimed to be sola scriptura. I just said that I don’t think that extra-scriptural rituals are to be included in the essentials of our faith.

So, I am willing to live with a lot of variation of practice, as I don’t think the ritual itself is God-given. Instead, God lets us find that mode which works best for each one of us to communicate that message which he wishes to communicate to us. Some will use preaching, some will use song, some will use this ritual, and others will use that ritual. It’s all good. In fact, about the only time I would really say that someone was definitly in the wrong, was if they tried to pass on to others that in order for them to be right that they had to copy their way as the one and only right way. While it would look ridiculous, I think you can worship Jesus standing on your head if you wish to, and can be baptized that way too.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I agree. But being baptized as a baby is imposing the decision to follow Christ on someone who may not even grow to want to. Baptism, as I have learned it, is about the profession of Faith of which a baby can’t make that decision.

And that last point is where I disagree with you. Baptism isn’t really about the baptized person’s faith. It is about God’s action. God, not the baptizee is the actor in the event. So, the only promises that matter are the promises of God. And the profession of faith that matters is the profession made by the assembled community of faith that they continue to place their faith in the God of these promises who has effected them to be true in their lives.

I know that if you have never thought of this before, that this can really be a different way of looking at baptism. But once we realize that baptism is worship and the center of worship is always God, then we can take our eyes off of those being baptized and it all begins to make sense.

(Of course, I’m still dealing with people in my church who want to praise the soloist for their offering of song on Sunday morning. We’ve each got our own growth issues.)