Paedobaptism

[b4uris]

Hi y'all,
Quick question: Are there any non-denom churches that practice infant baptism?

Thank you

 

[Kelly]

Mine doesn't.

We dedicate our babies. The parents, baby and the pastor go through a thing during service where the parents promise to raise the baby up to know Jesus.

 

[andross77]

Hi y'all,
Quick question: Are there any non-denom churches that practice infant baptism?

Thank you

Hi . Mine does. It's a non-denom Evangelical Church. We do both and i was both : infant baptism and adult baptism. We see it as an important and lovely sign that you are a follower of Christ, but as unecessary for Salvation.

I haven't done SUPER EXTENSIVE research on the topic, but i think we are just "saved by grace through faith and not of your own works that no man may boast". So i think Baptism is not in that equation. But i just thought, "why would i not get baptised? it can only be good for me and i want as many people as possible to know i'm a Christian."

/end rambling

 

[b4uris]

Hmmm, I meant infant baptism as practiced by most denominations, such as Lutherans, Catholics, Reformed,etc.

 

[andross77]

Hmmm, I meant infant baptism as practiced by most denominations, such as Lutherans, Catholics, Reformed,etc.

not sure what you mean but as i said in my post, my church practices infant baptism. Sometimes they put a dab of water on the forehead, sometimes they don't.

but they charge the parents and then we as a congregation say we will help them in any way we can and pray for them. that's infant baptism in my church. not sure what kind of infant baptism you are talking about.

 

[Kelly]

I think the OP is referring to the kind where those involved feel that if your baby dies without being baptized, they are not a Child of God and thus go to Hell. That's what some little catholic girls told my 8 yo daughter in school last week.

I explained to her that they were false, and that she's under the blood of the Lamb when she confessed Jesus as her savior.

 

[b4uris]

Sorry for not being clear. I was asking whether there are non-denom churches that practice infant baptism and consider it to be no different than adult baptism (i.e., they both have the same effect on the person, whatever that is taken to be).

Andross77, you said your church practices both and you were baptized twice. Are people at your church who were baptized as infants expected to become baptized again as adults? If they are, that is more akin to a dedication using water than an infant baptism.

Thanks

 

[andross77]

Sorry for not being clear. I was asking whether there are non-denom churches that practice infant baptism and consider it to be no different than adult baptism (i.e., they both have the same effect on the person, whatever that is taken to be).

Andross77, you said your church practices both and you were baptized twice. Are people are people at your church who were baptized as infants expected to become baptized again as adults? If they are, that is more akin to a dedication using water than an infant baptism.

Thanks

my bad. As i read our church statement of beliefs further, it is infant dedication that they offer. They also believe in both forms of adult baptism, immersion and affusion. So i guess we don't do infant baptism. i shoulda know this considering my nephew was just dedicated last Sunday . hope that helps.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

How do you wake the dead?

You baptize them. In the Lutheran church, we feel the earlier the better. You are dead spiritually at birth so age is really inmaterial.

The reason I posted here is not to debate, but I have asked non-denoms this before about the nature of non-denoms since that "is where the Bible is preached". So I figured, there should be some probability that some would use infant baptism to some degree. Thanks for showing me at least the probability.

Peace,
Cos

 

[hsilgne]

I think the OP is referring to the kind where those involved feel that if your baby dies without being baptized, they are not a Child of God and thus go to Hell. That's what some little catholic girls told my 8 yo daughter in school last week.

I explained to her that they were false, and that she's under the blood of the Lamb when she confessed Jesus as her savior.

You are correct, that is false and those "little catholic girls" were wrong in saying that.

Just so there is no misconception, the Catholic Church believes in and teaches "Baptism by desire" and a baby that has not yet been baptized falls into this category.

Gods Peace!

 

[b4uris]

TheCosmicGospel, I agree with you on that (I'm Catholic). What prompted me to ask this was also the non-denom stance of looking solely at the bible for doctrine aside from any denominational baggage, therefore I expected some non-denom churches to hold to infant baptism as well. However, I've read on other forums that non-denominational churches practice "believer's baptism" only, and this thread seems to confirm that. Though I would think thera are some churches that actually do this, even if they are fringe among non-denominationalism.

 

[Floatingaxe]

My non-denominational church teaches that baptism is only as outlined in Scripture: adult believer, and immersion.

Anything else is religion, and not Biblical.

 

[Angeldove97]

My non-denominational church teaches that baptism is only as outlined in Scripture: adult believer, and immersion.

Anything else is religion, and not Biblical.

I don't debate, but such interpretations of what the Bible says is open to personal interpretations. While I was Protestant for a number of years, I never heard of baby baptisms, only adult and full immersion. I think it's very meaningful to do it as an adult though. I think my views on baptism has changed since I became a Catholic though.

 

[Floatingaxe]

I don't debate, but such interpretations of what the Bible says is open to personal interpretations. While I was Protestant for a number of years, I never heard of baby baptisms, only adult and full immersion. I think it's very meaningful to do it as an adult though. I think my views on baptism has changed since I became a Catholic though.

Meaningful? It is a command for believers. Babies cannot obey it for lack of understanding.

 

[Controverse]

I don't believe in infant baptism.

Baptism should strictly be retained for those who are old enough and mature enough to make informed decisions on the subject.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Who knows, you may be right. The record of church history shows something really amazing. They did indeed baptize infants. This was the church born by the apostles and stood on their teachings. They had the Bible.

Now when did the teachings about denial of infant baptism begin? And you want to float your boat with them? They also believed in many false ideas that you would reject - polygamy, unitarianism, denied personal property. They had the Bible but chose not to use it very much.

So, by your view, the church always had it wrong until, Anabaptists saved the day? They did not appear until the 1500's....wow...the church..led by the Holy Spirit...based on the teachings of St. Paul and others had it wrong all those years.

You believe in Easter? That's not in the Bible either. Neither is the word Trinity. And I have looked and looked for anyone in the Gospels who raised their hand and said they had made the decision to follow Jesus.

Age of accountability? Not by Ps. 51.

All who follow some practice of baptism follow some traditions of men. For some it is the traditions of St. Paul. For some, it is the traditions of the Anabaptists. Choose your heresies carefully.

Peace,
Cos

 

[Floatingaxe]

Who knows, you may be right. The record of church history shows something really amazing. They did indeed baptize infants. This was the church born by the apostles and stood on their teachings. They had the Bible.

Now when did the teachings about denial of infant baptism begin? And you want to float your boat with them? They also believed in many false ideas that you would reject - polygamy, unitarianism, denied personal property. They had the Bible but chose not to use it very much.

So, by your view, the church always had it wrong until, Anabaptists saved the day? They did not appear until the 1500's....wow...the church..led by the Holy Spirit...based on the teachings of St. Paul and others had it wrong all those years.

You believe in Easter? That's not in the Bible either. Neither is the word Trinity. And I have looked and looked for anyone in the Gospels who raised their hand and said they had made the decision to follow Jesus.

Age of accountability? Not by Ps. 51.

All who follow some practice of baptism follow some traditions of men. For some it is the traditions of St. Paul. For some, it is the traditions of the Anabaptists. Choose your heresies carefully.

Peace,
Cos

What church records?
It is not in Scripture. It is the believers' baptism only.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Let's try to make this a little clearer. There are two possibilities when it comes to the church.

#1 - The Church is the Historic Confessional Body of believers in Jesus Christ. This Church started by the Apostles Peter and Paul continues to this day. It will never end.

#2 - The Church that St. Paul started blew up and continues to fall out of the sky. It is everyman for himself to grab any sized blank and determine what is best for his needs/situation and according to his own reason and understanding.

If you begin to see the Church as the first possibility, then we might want to find some continuity with our church today to the church of the Apostles. I would want to understand how they applied the Scriptures and how they practiced such sacraments of baptism. The practice of infant baptism was done in the early church. Therefore I would consider their information important in determining to follow this or not.

St. Paul asked the church to be diligent in its teachings, to be watchful, to stand against error. This Church did baptize infants in accord with Scripture. So without dismissing it out of hand because of what you understand in Scripture, believer's baptism, which does not negate infant baptism, then you might further investigate the church record.

Or you can hold out for Church #2 and then it is everyman for himself to interpret Scriptures to the best of his limited ability.

The problem begins if you hold to #1 while holding to the heresy of denial of infant baptism which didn't occur until the 1500's. There itself, is a big, big clue.

Peace,
Cos

 

[Floatingaxe]

Let's try to make this a little clearer. There are two possibilities when it comes to the church.

#1 - The Church is the Historic Confessional Body of believers in Jesus Christ. This Church started by the Apostles Peter and Paul continues to this day. It will never end.

#2 - The Church that St. Paul started blew up and continues to fall out of the sky. It is everyman for himself to grab any sized blank and determine what is best for his needs/situation and according to his own reason and understanding.

If you begin to see the Church as the first possibility, then we might want to find some continuity with our church today to the church of the Apostles. I would want to understand how they applied the Scriptures and how they practiced such sacraments of baptism. The practice of infant baptism was done in the early church. Therefore I would consider their information important in determining to follow this or not.

St. Paul asked the church to be diligent in its teachings, to be watchful, to stand against error. This Church did baptize infants in accord with Scripture. So without dismissing it out of hand because of what you understand in Scripture, believer's baptism, which does not negate infant baptism, then you might further investigate the church record.

Or you can hold out for Church #2 and then it is everyman for himself to interpret Scriptures to the best of his limited ability.

The problem begins if you hold to #1 while holding to the heresy of denial of infant baptism which didn't occur until the 1500's. There itself, is a big, big clue.

Peace,
Cos

Since when is denying infant baptism a heresy, when it isn't even biblical? Extra-biblical practices are more in line with heresy than anything else.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Since you are going with the option #2 approach of the church, I really can't help you much.

Your favorite heretics introduced it into the church in the 1550's. Up until then, the Church did indeed and still does practice infant Baptism. And they do so on the clear teachings of the apostles. The apostles and the early church applied Scriptures. That you do not understand these Sciptures is probably more the point. You can lead a horse to water, you just can't make him drink.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.

Peace,
Cos