Do Non Demonination Churches Baptize Infants?

[Dave-W]

I am slightly worried that do immersion only.

The Greek words that were "anglicized" into baptize/baptism were bapto and baptizo. Both have the sense of being immersed. They mean to dip, to plunge or to soak underwater. So to call sprinkling a baptism is a stretch.

 

[Albion]

The Greek words that were "anglicized" into baptize/baptism were bapto and baptizo. Both have the sense of being immersed. They mean to dip, to plunge or to soak underwater. So to call sprinkling a baptism is a stretch.

For what it's worth department--

Most of the churches that are accused of "sprinkling" -- by people who belong to Protestant churches that require immersion -- normally DO NOT baptize by sprinkling.

I think that the word itself sounds funny or trivial, so this may account for those folks' preference for it. If not, it's just something that they've been told sometime in the past.

 

[Dave-W]

Most of the churches that are accused of "sprinkling" -- by people who belong to Protestant churches that require immersion -- normally DO NOT baptize by sprinkling.

I think that the word itself sounds funny or trivial, so this may account for those folks' preference for it.

I gave the linguistic meaning of the command. But if you look at the historical/cultural roots of the practice; teviliah (immersion) in the Jewish mikvah pool, and, you will find that total immersion is what is being talked about.

 

[Albion]

I gave the linguistic meaning of the command. But if you look at the historical/cultural roots of the practice; teviliah (immersion) in the Jewish mikvah pool, and, you will find that total immersion is what is being talked about.

1. The word also means to dip or wash, neither of which requires a total immersion.

2. Regardless of the translation, it's still the case that most churches that are said to baptize by "sprinking" use another method.

 

[Dave-W]

2. Regardless of the translation, it's still the case that most churches that are said to baptize by "sprinking" use another method.

But it falls short of total immersion. The method beyond that is irrelevant.

 

[Lily5]

I was baptized with sprinkle so I'm not fussed about it. We are attending a Catholic baptism prep class next week, and I'm hoping it goes well so we can have our daughter baptized in the Catholic Church.

 

[Albion]

But it falls short of total immersion.

Of course it does. My point was only that calling what they do "sprinkling" is incorrect.

I hope that anyone reading this who thinks that most Christian churches which do not baptize by the immersion method do so by "sprinking" instead will take note for future reference.

 

[Albion]

I was baptized with sprinkle so I'm not fussed about it. We are attending a Catholic baptism prep class next week, and I'm hoping it goes well so we can have our daughter baptized in the Catholic Church.

Are you sure that it wasn't by affusion instead? In any case, what is required for a valid baptism (other than for proper intention) is the use of water and the invocation of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Are you sure that it wasn't by affusion instead? In any case, what is required for a valid baptism (other than for proper intention) is the use of water and the invocation of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Yes, it's really not so fussy. It's not as if God is limited.

Iirc, the Didache lists preferences for immersion, moving water, and even the temperature of the water, but allows that baptism can occur without any of those particulars. If one has no access to water, a person can even be baptized by pouring sand, rather than not baptizing at all.

It is a work of God after all. He gives us instructions of how it should be done, but it's not as though He will withdraw His grace if we are unable to follow a particular form.

(Not arguing with you, btw - I'm agreeing with part of what I think your point is. I'm really not expressing myself well today though, so forgive me please if I'm unclear.)

 

[Albion]

Yes, I understand. What matters to Lily is what her own church thinks about this; and it considers immersion, pouring/affusion, or even sprinkling to be valid. There's no reason for any concern about that although the thread wandered into a discussion about the mode of baptism .

 

[Bonzobob]

You should go to the Catholic Church or whatever Orthodox Church your husband is a member of for baptism and all the sacraments. It sounds like your husband has already vetoed that for some reason. Does he forbid you going to your Catholic church?

The good news is, depending on what sort of non-denominational denomination it is, their baptism might be valid. Depends. Do they use real water? If they immerse or pour, with natural water, that's all to the good. Do they use the Trinitarian formula for baptism found at the end of the Gospel of Matthew? If so, that's all to the good. Do they have a Trinitarian understanding of who God is? Or only sorta kinda? Do they accept the Nicean Creed? If so, more than likely the baptism would be valid.

You can read about how baptism from the point of view of the early Church hrer in the Didache, written at the end of the first century of the Church. The Didache - Teaching of the Twelve Apostles - Oldest Church Manual

 

[Bonzobob]

Why do you want your daughter baptised, that is a decision for her to make when she has accepted Jesus as her Lord and Saviour.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Why do you want your daughter baptised, that is a decision for her to make when she has accepted Jesus as her Lord and Saviour.

The Catholic Church teaches infant baptism. I am going to assume he is Catholic.

 

[Bonzobob]

Where in Scripture does it mention 'infant baptism'?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Where in Scripture does it mention 'infant baptism'?

Not arguing, just explaining why he is having his daughter baptized.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church teaches infant baptism. I am going to assume he is Catholic.

And so do most other churches, both Catholic and Protestant, such as the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Reformed, Methodists, and Greek Orthodox.

 

[Spirit of Pentecost]

Most practicing non-denominational churches I know of align closely to other established Baptist or Pentecostal churches, or maybe even Bapticostal.

In saying that, most non-denominational churches, particularly like the ones I mentioned above, aren't going to baptize infants or even young children. More often than not, they are going to adhere to believer's baptism, meaning the Christian must be a repented believer who is old enough to understand the importance of baptism, and what it is symbolic for.