What is the point of infant baptism?

[grandvizier1006]

I understand that many denominations (including the one I was raised in) do infant baptism. I was baptism as a baby, too. But to me, I feel like doing this is a little bit pointless. I have several reasons. One is that it doesn't affect a person's salvation or relationship with Christ. In the Middle Ages, there was this concern about what happened to infants who died before they could get baptized, as if they'd be in Hell because their parents couldn't get them to a priest in time. That makes no sense to me. Two, it's not as meaningful as a conscious decision to accept Christ and receive a full, immersive baptism. I would much rather have had one of those because it would have been a much more meaningful entry into the faith then having it done for me by my parents at a young age. Three, if it's done it provides no security in salvation and doesn't guarantee that person will stay a Christian. My twin brother is an atheist now, and he got baptized as a baby like I did. Baptism, meant to be a sign of cleansing oneself of sins, ended up meaning nothing to him.

I hope this is the right section as I'd like a variety of denominations' perspectives on this.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I understand that many denominations (including the one I was raised in) do infant baptism. I was baptism as a baby, too. But to me, I feel like doing this is a little bit pointless. I have several reasons. One is that it doesn't affect a person's salvation or relationship with Christ. In the Middle Ages, there was this concern about what happened to infants who died before they could get baptized, as if they'd be in Hell because their parents couldn't get them to a priest in time. That makes no sense to me. Two, it's not as meaningful as a conscious decision to accept Christ and receive a full, immersive baptism. I would much rather have had one of those because it would have been a much more meaningful entry into the faith then having it done for me by my parents at a young age. Three, if it's done it provides no security in salvation and doesn't guarantee that person will stay a Christian. My twin brother is an atheist now, and he got baptized as a baby like I did. Baptism, meant to be a sign of cleansing oneself of sins, ended up meaning nothing to him.

I hope this is the right section as I'd like a variety of denominations' perspectives on this.

Baptism saves.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Baptism saves.

But what about my brother? Evidently it didn't work for him.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

But what about my brother? Evidently it didn't work for him.

Or perhaps God did work through it for him but then he fell away from his faith. I really can't address such an individual case.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Two, it's not as meaningful as a conscious decision to accept Christ and receive a full, immersive baptism.

[Citation needed.]

I would much rather have had one of those because it would have been a much more meaningful entry into the faith then having it done for me by my parents at a young age.

That's the purpose of the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Three, if it's done it provides no security in salvation and doesn't guarantee that person will stay a Christian.

That's not a viewpoint shared by the groups who practice infant baptism.

My twin brother is an atheist now, and he got baptized as a baby like I did. Baptism, meant to be a sign of cleansing oneself of sins, ended up meaning nothing to him.

I'm sorry to hear that.

I hope this is the right section as I'd like a variety of denominations' perspectives on this.

It introduces the baby into God's family on the authority of the baby's parents. When the child is old enough, he takes the promise made by his parents upon himself in Confirmation.

 

[TuxAme]

We baptize infants for the same reason that the Jews- including the Holy Family- circumcised their sons: to admit them into God's Covenant family.

 

[Tutorman]

But what about my brother? Evidently it didn't work for him.

It did. He has to decide now to follow Christ or not. Baptism does not force one to follow Christ, just as circumcision did not force someone to follow God in the OT. Both Baptism (NT) and Circumcision (OT) are efficacious and were given as a sign and a seal but the person still has to decide to follow God

 

[anna ~ grace]

But what about my brother? Evidently it didn't work for him.

One must grow, respond to Christ, and follow Christ, too. I also wondered what was up with infant baptism as it didn't seem to magically, automatically produce awesome Christians every time. But with every grace, it must be grown into, responded to, and lived out, as one is able. Grace saves, yet we must also cooperate with grace.

Our infant baptism is valid, and confers grace. But as we grow, we must also respond and follow. Infants, too, even those in the womb, can respond to and benefit from God's grace and blessings. So it is not lost on them, by any means.

Luke 1:41-44
Matthew 19:13-15

I hear folks who point out that Scripture does not give explicit examples of infant baptism. Neither, as one poster pointed out, does it prohibit it. And, for those interested, there is evidence beyond Scripture that infants and little children, likely too little to confess on their own, were baptized, early on.

Infant Baptism — Church Fathers

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I understand that many denominations (including the one I was raised in) do infant baptism. I was baptism as a baby, too. But to me, I feel like doing this is a little bit pointless. I have several reasons. One is that it doesn't affect a person's salvation or relationship with Christ. In the Middle Ages, there was this concern about what happened to infants who died before they could get baptized, as if they'd be in Hell because their parents couldn't get them to a priest in time. That makes no sense to me. Two, it's not as meaningful as a conscious decision to accept Christ and receive a full, immersive baptism. I would much rather have had one of those because it would have been a much more meaningful entry into the faith then having it done for me by my parents at a young age. Three, if it's done it provides no security in salvation and doesn't guarantee that person will stay a Christian. My twin brother is an atheist now, and he got baptized as a baby like I did. Baptism, meant to be a sign of cleansing oneself of sins, ended up meaning nothing to him.

I hope this is the right section as I'd like a variety of denominations' perspectives on this.

This is definitely a denomination specific issue. What denomination do you follow?

 

[grandvizier1006]

This is definitely a denomination specific issue. What denomination do you follow?

I was raised Presbyterian but now I don't really subscribe to any particular denomination. I haven't really figured out what I believe about the nitty-gritty stuff yet.

 

[HTacianas]

I understand that many denominations (including the one I was raised in) do infant baptism. I was baptism as a baby, too. But to me, I feel like doing this is a little bit pointless. I have several reasons. One is that it doesn't affect a person's salvation or relationship with Christ. In the Middle Ages, there was this concern about what happened to infants who died before they could get baptized, as if they'd be in Hell because their parents couldn't get them to a priest in time. That makes no sense to me. Two, it's not as meaningful as a conscious decision to accept Christ and receive a full, immersive baptism. I would much rather have had one of those because it would have been a much more meaningful entry into the faith then having it done for me by my parents at a young age. Three, if it's done it provides no security in salvation and doesn't guarantee that person will stay a Christian. My twin brother is an atheist now, and he got baptized as a baby like I did. Baptism, meant to be a sign of cleansing oneself of sins, ended up meaning nothing to him.

I hope this is the right section as I'd like a variety of denominations' perspectives on this.

The purpose of infant baptism is to bring the child into the Church. Your mention of beliefs of the middle ages is based on the Western notion of original sin. That view has never been held by the Eastern Churches, yet all the Eastern Churches practice infant baptism. It's one of the earliest traditions of Christianity and is practiced by all of the original Churches. Origen wrote circa 200 AD or so that it was handed down to us by the apostles.

 

[FireDragon76]

I understand that many denominations (including the one I was raised in) do infant baptism. I was baptism as a baby, too. But to me, I feel like doing this is a little bit pointless. I have several reasons. One is that it doesn't affect a person's salvation or relationship with Christ. In the Middle Ages, there was this concern about what happened to infants who died before they could get baptized, as if they'd be in Hell because their parents couldn't get them to a priest in time. That makes no sense to me. Two, it's not as meaningful as a conscious decision to accept Christ and receive a full, immersive baptism. I would much rather have had one of those because it would have been a much more meaningful entry into the faith then having it done for me by my parents at a young age. Three, if it's done it provides no security in salvation and doesn't guarantee that person will stay a Christian. My twin brother is an atheist now, and he got baptized as a baby like I did. Baptism, meant to be a sign of cleansing oneself of sins, ended up meaning nothing to him.

I hope this is the right section as I'd like a variety of denominations' perspectives on this.

Why is an apparent choice better than a gift?

Perhaps you are looking at it having grown up in a "Wet-Baby Baptist" Presbyterian type setting where baptism just isn't valued very much, but most Christians historically have seen more significance in it than that.

But what about my brother? Evidently it didn't work for him.

Perhaps God isn't done with him.

As a Lutheran, baptism is not just something my parents did in the past. It is a present reality I live in and under, and infuses nearly every part of our spirituality.

 

[Dave-W]

We baptize infants for the same reason that the Jews- including the Holy Family- circumcised their sons: to admit them into God's Covenant family.

Except the Mosaic and New covenants are entered VERY DIFFERENTLY. One enters the Mosaic covenant by being born a Jew. One enters the New Covenant by repentance and a conscious decision to join it.

 

[Dave-W]

 

[Neo_Frisk]

We baptize infants for the same reason that the Jews- including the Holy Family- circumcised their sons: to admit them into God's Covenant family.

When you say you baptise your infants, do you fully immerse them in water, or do you sprinkle them? Because if you don't immerse them (as per baptism's definition), wouldn't that be the equivalent of the Jews claiming they circumcise their daughters to admit them into God's covenant family, when such a claim would be totally at odds with the original covenant?

 

[FireDragon76]

Except the Mosaic and New covenants are entered VERY DIFFERENTLY. One enters the Mosaic covenant by being born a Jew. One enters the New Covenant by repentance and a conscious decision to join it.

If that were true, then the mentally retarded or autistic would be excluded.

The Bible speaks nothing of an "age of accountability" where one is suppossedly old enough to decide to be baptized. That's something that is foreign to the biblical world where religious voluntarism was not a given.

 

[FireDragon76]

When you say you baptise your infants, do you fully immerse them in water, or do you sprinkle them? Because if you don't immerse them (as per baptism's definition), wouldn't that be the equivalent of the Jews claiming they circumcise their daughters to admit them into God's covenant family, when such a claim would be totally at odds with the original covenant?

Varying amounts of water were used in ancient baptisms, as evidenced by the Didache. The exact amount of water is not critical: the Bible doesn't describe exactly how baptism was done, other than it used water and was done in the name of the Father, Sony, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Dave-W]

If that were true, then the mentally retarded or autistic would be excluded.

Except for the fact that God is amazingly merciful. But His mercy cannot be quantified so as to let it be written down.

The Bible speaks nothing of an "age of accountability"

I completely concur.


The fact that the New Covenant is "opt in" rather than "opt out" is clearly portrayed in Romans 11, in the image of the 2 olive trees.

In order for a Gentile to be saved they have to be cut from the uncultivated tree of destruction and become grafted into the Tree of Promise. Jews are the "natural branches" of that tree.

 

[Neo_Frisk]

Varying amounts of water were used in ancient baptisms, as evidenced by the Didache. The exact amount of water is not critical: the Bible doesn't describe exactly how baptism was done, other than it used water and was done in the name of the Father, Sony, and Holy Spirit.

I'm fairly sure scripture uses the word "baptise" - to fully immerse. Anything else isn't really baptism, just as trimming any other body part or thing isn't really circumcision, however anyone wants to claim that it is.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I'm fairly sure scripture uses the word "baptise" - to fully immerse. Anything else isn't really baptism, just as trimming any other body part or thing isn't really circumcision, however anyone wants to claim that it is.

It uses it in a way to mean "to wash something in a way it is normatively washed."