Replies:

• 
• by
  • Groovy-flor
  on Jul. 2, 2009 at 5:24 PM

• My son was baptized at 6 months old in the Lutheran Church.  It was not something that really mattered to me in any way, but it meant a great deal to my grandmother.  She was upset that we did it in a Lutheran church instead of a Presbyterian one, but I think she realized that she was lucky to get it at all.

  He was also dedicated at the UU church, but that was just mainly me promising to raise him to the best of my ability.  Then he got a flower which he promptly tried to eat.  LOL

  

• 
• by
  • AliceIsIn
  on Jul. 2, 2009 at 6:11 PM

• Part of infant baptism involves cleansing the child of the sin in which we are all (according to some beliefs) born. Another part- and this is the part people tend to emphasize, in my experience- involves blessing the child, dedicating the child to your religion, and welcoming him/her to the community. This last is why some groups that do not do infant baptism (UU's, I'm lookin' at you here!) still do a dedication ceremony.

  BTW, are Catholics the only ones who use the term "christening"? I also thought of that term as synonymous with "baptism", particularly infant baptism, in part, I think, because as a child I was told that the sacrement also involves welcoming the child into the family of Christ. However, as an adult, I have met people who do not even know the meaning of the word "christening".

• 
• by
  • lanenadenene
  on Jul. 2, 2009 at 6:17 PM

• No I don't believe in infant baptism.  It was not a teaching established by Christ when he was here and that is the example we are to follow.  I believe just like in the times of the bible the parents were mostly reponsible for their children's salvation.  So a baptism by mother or father would suffice until that child is enough to make the decision on their own.  But JW's also do not believe in hell, while other Christian denominations do - so that is what they fear I guess.

  I also don't believe teens should be bauptized though they do allow that in my religion.  I am glad that there are young individuals that are so dedicated and know that they want to serve Jehovah God even from a very young age...  but still - I say wait because just like Jesus could have been baptized young but waited until he was 30 - we should wait until we are adults ready and willing to take up the "vows" and responsibility that go along with baptism.  Something that some teens are not ready for (myself included) ... but this is of course my personal views on it.

• 
• by
  • Hoomom
  on Jul. 2, 2009 at 6:27 PM

• History

  Scholars disagree on the date when infant baptism was first practiced. Some believe that first-century Christians did not practice it.^[4] Others believe that they did,^[5] understanding biblical references to individuals "and [their] whole household" being baptized (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:31-33, 1 Corinthians 1:16) as including small children and infants.

  While the earliest extra-biblical directions for baptism,^[6] which occurs in the Didache (c. 100),^[7] seems to envisage the baptism of adults, rather than young children, since it requires that the person to be baptised should fast,^[8] writings of the second and early third century indicate that Christians baptized infants too.^[9] Irenaeus (c. 130–202) speaks not only of children but even of infants being "born again to God"^[10] and three passages of Origen (185–c. 254)^[11] mention infant baptism as traditional and customary.^[12] Tertullian (c. 155–230) too, while advising postponement of baptism until after marriage, mentions that it was customary to baptise infants, with sponsors speaking on their behalf.^[13] The Apostolic Tradition, attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (died 235), describes how to perform the ceremony of baptism; it states that children were baptised first, and if any of them could not answer for themselves, their parents or someone else from their family was to answer for them.^[14]

  Some writers who believe that baptism of infants began to be practiced only after the first century - in the third century it was certainly the universal practice and was believed to be of apostolic origin^[15] - posit a link between it and the use of baptism by methods other than immersion, methods which, in spite of the evidence of the Didache, some claim did not at all exist in the first century.

  From at least the third century onward Christians baptized infants as standard practice, although some preferred to postpone baptism until late in life, so as to ensure forgiveness for all their preceding sins.^[16

  
  

  Infant baptism

  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Jump to: navigation, search
  
  

  
  

  Water is poured on the head of an infant held over the baptismal font of a Catholic church

  Infant baptism is the Christian religious practice of baptizing infants or young children. In theological discussions, the practice is sometimes referred to as paedobaptism or pedobaptism from the Greek pais meaning "child." The practice is sometimes contrasted with what is called "believer's baptism," or credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe," which is the religious practice of baptizing only individuals who personally confess faith in Jesus, therefore excluding very young children.

  Most Christians practice infant baptism.^[1] They include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Anglican Communion, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Church of the Nazarene,^[2] the Reformed Church in America,^[3] the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Continental Reformed.

  Groups within the Protestant tradition that reject infant baptism include most Baptists, Apostolic Christians, all Old Time Missionary Baptists, Disciples of Christ, most Pentecostals, Mennonites, Amish, Community of Christ, Plymouth Brethren, Seventh-day Adventists, most non-denominational churches, and other Arminian denominations. Infant baptism is also excluded by Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Latter-day Saints.

  

• 
• by
  • lanenadenene
  on Jul. 2, 2009 at 6:32 PM

• Plus, it's my understanding that a baptism should include a full body submersion to symbolize the cleansing and being "reborn", no?

• 
• by
  • eringobrough
  on Jul. 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM

• Do you practice infant baptism? 

  Yes.  I was baptized as an infant and my children were all baptized as infants.  We were all baptized in the gown worn by my mother and my grandfather (handmade by my great-grandmother).

  Does your religion? 

  Yes, the Catholic religion says everyone - infants and adults - can be baptized.

  What is your religion's teaching on this? 

  Basically it's the idea that baptism is something God does for us, not something we do for God so everyone can be baptized.  We believe baptism is regenerative - it does something and is more than symbolic.  Baptism washes away sin (original sin for infants, original sin and actual sin for adults).  It brings the person into the New Covenant with Christ and places a permant mark on the soul, so once someone is baptized they don't have to be rebaptized.  Like when my husband converted from Methodist, since he was baptized as an infant he did not have to be rebaptized when he converted.  Through baptism we receive God's grace - which is freely given so someone doesn't have to ask for it.

  Infant baptism is done based on the faith of the parents.  The parents need to promise to raise the child in the Catholic faith.  If a priest has a reasonable belief that the parents will not raise the child Catholic, he can postpone the baptism explaining to the parents his reason for doing so.

  What do you think? 

  I agree with the Catholic teachings (surprise, surprise).

  Are people born with original sin? 

  Yes, but people don't always agree on what original sin is.  For Catholics the doctrine of original sin is that "in" Adam all have sinned. This parallels the doctrine of justification that "in" Christ all are righteous.  The idea is most obvious in Romans 5:12-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.

  Original sin is different than actual sin - it's not something that is committed but something that is part of our human nature.  We don't inherit a sin from Adam - we inherit our damaged human nature from him.  When Adam sin, he lost the original holiness and justice that he had received from God, not just for himself but for all of us.  That sin affected our human nature and because of the human nature that we inherit from Adam that nature is deprived of original holiness - this is what we call 'original sin'. 

  A article that explains this in more detail from a Catholic perspective is "To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin".

  Would an unbaptised baby go to hell? 

  We don't know since that decision is up to God.  No one has a right to heaven.  But it's very reasonable to guess that as merciful and loving as God is he would not condemen a soul with original sin to hell.

   Did your religion use to teach this, but now has "softened" it's reasoning for it?

  The Catholic Church never taught unbaptized babies go to hell.  There were some Catholic theologians who thought that.  Some thought that they would go to 'limbo' - a place of perfect happiness but without the presense of God.  But these were just opinions of theologicans.  While different ideas were more/less popular at different times, neither was ever a dogma of the Catholic Church.  Currently the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

  "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. "
  

• 
• by
  • eringobrough
  on Jul. 2, 2009 at 11:47 PM

• 
  

  Quoting lanenadenene:
  
  

  Plus, it's my understanding that a baptism should include a full body submersion to symbolize the cleansing and being "reborn", no?

  
  No, that's not required.  It's an option in the Catholic church, but not a requirement.  The early Church admitted three valid methods of baptism: immersion, sprinkling, and pouring. But there was only ever one valid set of baptismal words, the Trinitarian (in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). It wasn't enough to baptize only in the name of Jesus.  The Bible never explictly said how the water had to be poured - but Jesus was specific in what words to use.
  
  

• 
• by
  • eringobrough
  on Jul. 2, 2009 at 11:53 PM

• If you're interested, back in 1982 the World Conference of Churches came up with the BEM paper (Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry) which discusses and attempts to reconcile the various understandings of Christian baptism.  It's quite interesting.  In part it points out:

  When the expressions "infant baptism" and "believers' baptism" are used, it is necessary to keep in mind that the real distinction is between those who baptize people at any age and those who baptize only those able to make a confession of faith for themselves. The differences between infant and believers' baptism become less sharp when it is recognized that both forms of baptism embody God's own initiative in Christ and express a response of faith made within the believing community.

  The practice of infant baptism emphasizes the corporate faith and the faith which the child shares with its parents. The infant is born into a broken world and shares in its broken- ness. Through baptism, the promise and claim of the Gospel are laid upon the child. The personal faith of the recipient of baptism and faithful participation in the life of the Church are essential for the full fruit of baptism.

  The practice of believers' baptism emphasizes the explicit confession of the person who responds to the grace of God in and through the community of faith and who seeks baptism.

  Both forms of baptism require a similar and responsible attitude towards Christian nurture. A rediscovery of the continuing character of Christian nurture may facilitate the mutual acceptance of different initiation practices.

  In some churches which unite both infant-baptist and believer-baptist traditions, it has been possible to regard as equivalent alternatives for entry into the Church both a pattern whereby baptism in infancy is followed by later profession of faith and a pattern whereby believers' baptism follows upon a presentation and blessing in infancy. This example invites other churches to decide whether they, too, could not recognize equivalent alternatives in their reciprocal relationships and in church union negotiations.

   

• 
• by
  • emptynstr
  on Jul. 3, 2009 at 12:02 AM

•  I was baptised at the age of 10, looking back on it, I think I did it cause "that's what all my friends were doing". I was attending a Southern Baptist church at the time. My understanding was that it was a public expression of your acceptance of Jesus as your personal savior. The actual submersion in water wasn't a requirement, just an excuse to party. They didn't baptise babies, babies were dedicated to the church, no water involved.

  I married a Lapsed Catholic (my moms term) and was afraid my MIL was going to take my kids and have them christened without our consent. She was SO upset that we were condemning our children to such a horrible eternity. When we almost lost my son (he was 4) she really went out of her way to point out how wrong we were and what would have happened to his soul, yadda yadda, yadda....still worries about our souls once in awhile 17 years later.

  I personally no longer believe in sin as defined by Judea-Christian beliefs. I think there is nothing on this earth more innocent than a child, especially a newborn. It is a new life, a fresh start, it doesn't carry any of the burdens of the father.

  Leanne

  
  

  
  

  
  

   We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe. --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

• 
• by
  • eringobrough
  on Jul. 3, 2009 at 12:14 AM

•  personally no longer believe in sin as defined by Judea-Christian beliefs. I think there is nothing on this earth more innocent than a child, especially a newborn. It is a new life, a fresh start, it doesn't carry any of the burdens of the father.

  But the idea of original sin is not that the baby carries the burdens of the father - it's more that human nature itself is less than perfect.  We can see that in an infant - as wonderful as they are they are extremely selfish.  They don't think of others, toddlers will hit, bite and yell, they will refuse to share, etc.  Since they do not know any better these are not actual sins.  Any person who does not have the capablity of distinguishing right from wrong cannot commit an actual sin.  So original sin does not say that an infant is not innocent, more that it is part of our human nature to be selfish and have a tendancy toward sin.

Only group members can reply to this post.

Join Group