Baptism and babies

ChristianForCats said:

Baptists do what they call a "baby dedication" - parents line up at the front with their children and one by one, the pastor blesses them. The parents pledge to raise their children into Christ and teach him/her the Gospel. They do this because baptism is symbolic. It represents death and resurrection. This is what I like because being baptized as a baby did me no good as it took 20 years to become a Christian.

Click to expand...

Same for my wife, 40 years for my dad, never for lots of people.

prodromos said:

Not consistent. They originally had married priests and still do in the non-Latin rites

Click to expand...

I would argue your practice isn't consistent either, since the NT does not mention infants being baptized. It does mention Jesus and John the Baptist as infants. The NT pattern is believe and be baptized.

Justin-H.S. said:

No, they don't. Celibate priests is an innovation of the Middle Ages.

Click to expand...

Infant baptism is an early innovation.

East of Eden said:

Infant baptism is an early innovation.

Click to expand...

please show some evidence for this.

East of Eden said:

I would argue your practice isn't consistent either, since the NT does not mention infants being baptized. It does mention Jesus and John the Baptist as infants. The NT pattern is believe and be baptized.

Click to expand...

by this logic, you should not use the word Trinity either because that's not in Scripture.

ArmyMatt said:

please show some evidence for this.

Click to expand...

"The earliest extra-biblical directions for baptism,[19] which occur in the Didache (c. 100),[20] are taken to be about baptism of adults, since they require fasting by the person to be baptised."

Wikipedia

East of Eden said:

"The earliest extra-biblical directions for baptism,[19] which occur in the Didache (c. 100),[20] are taken to be about baptism of adults, since they require fasting by the person to be baptised."

Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Wikipedia, glad you take this seriously enough to do some real digging.

ArmyMatt said:

by this logic, you should not use the word Trinity either because that's not in Scripture.

Click to expand...

Not the same, the idea of the Trinity goes back to Genesis.

What does the Bible teach about the Trinity? | GotQuestions.org

ArmyMatt said:

Wikipedia, glad you take this seriously enough to do some real digging.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem, it's often less biased than the rest of us. Do you not agree with the fact I posted?

East of Eden said:

Not the same, the idea of the Trinity goes back to Genesis.

What does the Bible teach about the Trinity? | GotQuestions.org

Click to expand...

and what buz and others have said can show the same for infant baptism in the Scripture.

East of Eden said:

Ad hominem, it's often less biased than the rest of us. Do you not agree with the fact I posted?

Click to expand...

not ad hominem at all. you didn't make an argument, but used Wikipedia as a citation. if I used that to refute an argument it would be ad hominem.

and I disagree with minimalist, real-quick checking that doesn't cite everything from the early Church or it's context.

East of Eden said:

I would argue your practice isn't consistent either, since the NT does not mention infants being baptized. It does mention Jesus and John the Baptist as infants. The NT pattern is believe and be baptized.

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

by this logic, you should not use the word Trinity either because that's not in Scripture.

Click to expand...

East of Eden said:

Not the same, the idea of the Trinity goes back to Genesis.

Click to expand...

Therefore, ArmyMatt's point is correct. It's not a winning argument to say that some word does not appear in Scripture but then change the claim to saying that the idea does (but not the word).

ChristianForCats said:

How do they make sure water does not go up the baby's nose?

I held my nose to avoid that when pastors dunked me. Babies can't do that.

Click to expand...

I do not know how I held my nose as a baby but I do know I was triple immersed as a baby as we're all my siblings, nephews, nieces, cousins, uncles, parents, grandparent, great grandparents, same as my Greek, Serbian,, Syrian and Bulgarian friends going back to a millenia before the Ottomon Muslim occupation of our lands. Even the Copts of Egypt who have severed ties with us in 500 AD still practise baptism the same way we do. I have Coptic friends and they can trace their christian roots to way before the Muslim advanced in the 7th centuries. Themselves, their kids and wives and parents and grandparents and so on were all baptised the same way with triple immersion as babies for centuries and millenia:

East of Eden said:

Infant baptism is an early innovation.

Click to expand...

If it was an innovation then there would be evidence of some controversy, as the Church was very serious about "holding fast to the traditions they had been taught by the Apostles, either by word or epistle". You would also expect to find apologetics defending the innovation if it were so. You don't find any of that.

Albion said:

Therefore, ArmyMatt's point is correct. It's not a winning argument to say that some word does not appear in Scripture but then change the claim to saying that the idea does (but not the word).

Click to expand...

especially since others have made the case that the idea IS in Scripture.

Not only is infant baptism NOT an innovation it still practises using the ancient custom of baptising in the nude which was also the case for both adult men and women.

It does not say that the Ethiopian Eunuch stripped before being baptised by Phillip but it's unlikely he was submerged in his clothing and got back into his chariot soaking wet. The implication is he undressed which would be common sense. We know from this example and from the earliest custom of the church that all clothes were removed prior to submersion which is still done with babies.

East of Eden said:

This is child abuse.

Russian Priest In Hot Water Over Violent Baptism

Click to expand...

This is an extremely unfortunate individual incident out of millions. Accidents happen in circumcisions in extremely rare incidents.

East of Eden said:

"The earliest extra-biblical directions for baptism,[19] which occur in the Didache (c. 100),[20] are taken to be about baptism of adults, since they require fasting by the person to be baptised."

Wikipedia

Click to expand...

No it does not. What it shows is elements of what Orthodox have always been practicing which is triple immersion. The wording used is baptised INTO the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. It then says if you have no large body of water pour water three times which verifies triple immersion as the norm.
Hippolytus about 110 years later wrote how he is putting down in written form the traditions passed down to all the churches in use from the beginning . In baptism he says the baptismal candidates disrobe ( later on he says they enter the water) the little children are to be baptised first and if they cannot speak for themselves a parent will. The men are then baptised and finally the women. He goes on into detail on the ritual and the three confessions to be made between immersions. His writing is intended for the baptism of households.

If Hippolytus omitted the mention of children all the anti- Baptisers would have used this to say kids can't make any confession of faith between immersions or speak their consent etc.

But the fact that I have produced clear scriptural PROOF of infant baptism and they are still in denial. Here is the 1550 Stephanus manuscript of the original koine Greek that omits periods. This is how Galatians Chapter 3:27- 4:3 reads which makes clear little children (babies)were included in household baptisms:

27 οσοι γαρ εις χριστον εβαπτισθητε χριστον ενεδυσασθε
28 ουκ ενι ιουδαιος ουδε ελλην ουκ ενι δουλος ουδε ελευθερος ουκ ενι αρσεν και θηλυ παντες γαρ υμεις εις εστε εν χριστω ιησου
29 ει δε υμεις χριστου αρα του αβρααμ σπερμα εστε και κατ επαγγελιαν κληρονομο
1. λεγω δε εφ οσον χρονον ο κληρονομος νηπιος εστιν ουδεν διαφερει δουλου κυριος παντων ων
2 αλλα υπο επιτροπους εστιν και οικονομους αχρι της προθεσμιας του πατρος...

Anyone fluent enough to read what it says its obvious. In fact between verse 29 and 4:1 you could just add a comma or the word "and". It would still make sense as a single sentence.

I guess when Moses split the Red Sea, the Israelites left the infants on the Egyptian coast.

Albion said:

Therefore, ArmyMatt's point is correct. It's not a winning argument to say that some word does not appear in Scripture but then change the claim to saying that the idea does (but not the word).

Click to expand...

right. it'd be just as absurd to question Jacob's Well, Moses seat, or the Egyptian warlocks at a point before the books of the NT, just because they weren't written in the OT.