What is the point of infant baptism?

[Albion]

Either way, neither method involved sprinkling.

OK, but I hope you know that actual sprinkling is the norm in very few churches, regardless of denomination.

Mine wouldn't do it, for example, yet we are included in the condemnations handed out by the immersers when they vilify everyone who does not baptize using the method that they, the critics, approve of.

I think the word sprinkle must sound funny or trivializing, therefore it is used even when inaccurate, just as the same people use the word wafer when speaking of the bread used in Holy Communion in other peoples churches even though it is never called that in those churches.

 

[Albion]

The bible doesn't explicitly mention infant baptism.

That's true. Not explicitly. There is no verse that says "Baptize your infants." We know, however, that the New Testament describes baptisms that involved young children not of an age to make a confession of faith that some churches require before baptizing anyone (in theory, anyway).

 

[FireDragon76]

The bible doesn't explicitly mention infant baptism. Some try to carry it out, in obedience to what they believe is the command. But if obedience is the reason, don't change the command - else you accomplish neither obedience, nor consistency.

If we don't accept a regulative principle, that objection simply doesn't apply. We are being faithful to the Scriptures, we actually baptize and make disciples (Matthew 28:19). There is no age prerequisite on how old one must be to be a disciple in the Scriptures, last time I looked.

 

[FenderTL5]

OK, but I hope you know that actual sprinkling is the norm in very few churches, regardless of denomination.

Mine wouldn't do it, for example, yet we are included in the condemnations handed out by the immersers when they vilify everyone who does not baptize using the method that they, the critics, approve of.

I think the word sprinkle must sound funny or trivializing, therefore it is used even when inaccurate, just as the same people use the word wafer when speaking of the bread used in Holy Communion in other peoples churches even though it is never called that in those churches.

Agree in principle.

fwiw,
Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," in running water;
But if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm.
But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.
- the Didache -

 

[Albion]

The Didache. Yes, by the time it was written, the church had grappled with all sorts of gray areas of theology and made some decisions. Others wouldn't be settled until centuries later--baptism being one of them. But if doing things the right way is the objective, the Bible is what counts.

 

[Dave-W]

Our theology is not dependent on parsing out the quantity of water (we don't agree with Baptists that if a toe doesn't get baptized, it's not a real baptism),

But this ignores the already-known practice of tevilah, immersion, common in first century Judaism. (where Christianity got its start) John did NOT invent it, and neither did Peter. It was a new understanding and application of a long understood practice.

At the temple mount, there were about 1500 mikvah pools so the worshipers entering the Temple could be immersed before going in. So to have baptized 3000 people on Shavuot/Pentecost would have only taken a few minutes.

And yes, in Jewish tevilah, every hair and every toe must be submerged.

 

[FireDragon76]

But this ignores the already-known practice of tevilah, immersion, common in first century Judaism. (where Christianity got its start) John did NOT invent it, and neither did Peter. It was a new understanding and application of a long understood practice.

At the temple mount, there were about 1500 mikvah pools so the worshipers entering the Temple could be immersed before going in. So to have baptized 3000 people on Shavuot/Pentecost would have only taken a few minutes.

And yes, in Jewish tevilah, every hair and every toe must be submerged.

We simply don't understand baptism as a Jewish rite, nor is our religion dependent on Judaica for validation.

 

[Albion]

But this ignores the already-known practice of tevilah, immersion, common in first century Judaism. (where Christianity got its start) John did NOT invent it, and neither did Peter. It was a new understanding and application of a long understood practice.

That's true, but there is much in Christianity that, although derived in one way or another from the Jewish precedent, is not the same as that precedent. The Eucharist is NOT just a Passover meal. The Baptismal ceremony is NOT the baptism of John. And so on.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's true, but there is much in Christianity that, although derived in one way or another from the Jewish precedent, is not the same as that precedent. The Eucharist is NOT just a Passover meal. The Baptismal ceremony is NOT the baptism of John. And so on.

Indeed. Even most liberal, mainline scholars do not consider the Eucharist to be a reiteration of the Passover Seder. They think it reflects more on Jesus practice of eating with sinners. In the Gospels, we are given no clear indication that he intended it to be a continuation of a seder meal (which is really more of a medieval practice in its modern form, as my pastor was explaining yesterday- he was giving a sermon on the Exodus).

 

[Dave-W]

which is really more of a medieval practice in its modern form, as my pastor was explaining yesterday- he was giving a sermon on the Exodus).

Actually, the seder meal's general outline was set down in the first century bc by Rabbi Hillel. (grandfather of Paul's mentor Gamaliel)

I did a lot of research on it before I published my version.

 

[Dave-W]

Indeed. Even most liberal, mainline scholars do not consider the Eucharist to be a reiteration of the Passover Seder.

They are infected with the erroneous mindset that Christianity was supposed to be a separate religion from Judaism. That was from the antisemitism of many ECFs in the 3rd and 4th centuries, long after the original Jewish leadership was dead and gone.

 

[FireDragon76]

They are infected with the erroneous mindset that Christianity was supposed to be a separate religion from Judaism.

But it is a separate religion from Judaism. No Orthodox, Conservative or Reformed Jew would accept the notion that the two religions are compatible.

That was from the antisemitism of many ECFs in the 3rd and 4th centuries, long after the original Jewish leadership was dead and gone.

According to many scholars today, the NT itself shows sharp distinctions from Judaism, even branded by some as "anti-Semitic", particular with the later Gospels. So it didn't just begin in the 3rd and 4th centuries. As followers of Jesus were expelled from synagogues and persecuted, it became obvious they weren't practicing the same religion anymore, or else there would not have been such disagreements in the first place.

 

[Albion]

They are infected with the erroneous mindset that Christianity was supposed to be a separate religion from Judaism. That was from the antisemitism of many ECFs in the 3rd and 4th centuries, long after the original Jewish leadership was dead and gone.

We might give some consideration to that, but all we need to do is consult the NT and the words of Christ himself in order to make our decision about this.

 

[Dave-W]

No Orthodox, Conservative or Reformed Jew would accept the notion that the two religions are compatible.

That is not true. There are some orthodox rabbis in Israel that are saying that in another century Judaism and Christianity will re-unite.

 

[FireDragon76]

That is not true. There are some orthodox rabbis in Israel that are saying that in another century Judaism and Christianity will re-unite.

I don't see how that's possible unless one side or the other gives up something that is understood as being essential to their identity. Jews I have talked to make it quite clear Jesus is not the Messiah, he didn't do the things, in their mind, the Messiah would do. And once you accept that, it casts a shadow of doubt over much of the religious tradition.

 

[Dave-W]

I don't see how that's possible unless one side or the other gives up something that is understood as being essential to their identity. Jews I have talked to make it quite clear Jesus is not the Messiah, he didn't do the things, in their mind, the Messiah would do. And once you accept that, it casts a shadow of doubt over much of the religious tradition.

You may not see how it is possible, but go search the archives of the Jerusalem post from a year ago.

 

[grandvizier1006]

If you really believe this, there is no point in even being a Christian, then. We might as well just find some other way to spend our time on a Sunday morning. I have no time for talk of a purely hypothetical salvation. There could be invisible, undetectable teapots circling Jupiter, but it makes no difference to my life or anybody else's.

I think that's not quite what Dave meant. I think he meant that baptism doesn't guarantee salvation. If someone is baptized in the church, whether as an adult or an infant, it doesn't guarantee that they will remain a Christian for the rest of their life. And I don't think God would want us thinking, "I got baptized once, so I'm saved no matter what I do!" because that's obviously false. Personally, I think I understand baptism's symbolism like I do the sacraments/Eucharist/communion. And while they are a very important part of Christian tradition, they don't guarantee salvation or restore someone to a relationship with Christ.

 

[grandvizier1006]

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.




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.

I feel like baptism should be choice since it's a mark of a person joining/converting to Christianity. Some of your other posts suggest that you believe baptism is a gift of grace (Hope I'm not misrepresenting your beliefs on that). So I guess that's where the difference lies.

I think my denomination doesn't place a lot of emphasis on baptism. I was sprinkled with water a few times as a baby. As a kid who was forced to go to church (back when I wasn't really a Christian and didn't really understand what any of Christianity was truly about) I can remember many services "interrupted" (that's how I saw it because it took more time and I wanted to leave) by a baby getting baptized. Obviously I've grown spiritually since then and realize the significance, but I'm the kind of person that really needs a factual theology. To me, infant baptism doesn't do anything other than mark that the child will be raised in a Christian household, which to me is pointless, especially where I'm from as almost everyone claims to be Christian. In Europe I assume it's even more pointless since many people go to a church to get their baby baptized and never attend services after that.

An adult baptism would mean a lot more to me now that I'm actually a Christian. I would love to get re-baptized.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think that's not quite what Dave meant. I think he meant that baptism doesn't guarantee salvation. If someone is baptized in the church, whether as an adult or an infant, it doesn't guarantee that they will remain a Christian for the rest of their life.

Lutherans tend to have a very immediate temporal horizon over their spiritual lives (as Yoda says in Star Wars, "difficult to see, always in motion is the future"). And in many ways, we still have a very un-modern view of time, especially when it comes to spiritual things. It's trendy in the quasi-Zen spirituality now days to emphasize this, but the whole point for us Lutherans is also to live in the "now". We have Christ now, and that is sufficient.

And I don't think God would want us thinking, "I got baptized once, so I'm saved no matter what I do!" because that's obviously false.

Actually, that's potentially fundamental to Protestant religion, depending on how you take it. Luther himself told Melancthon that he should put aside his anxieties because no sin would separate him from God. At the same time, our ethics is directed towards the needs of our neighbor, so we are not libertines. We just aren't legalists.

Personally, I think I understand baptism's symbolism like I do the sacraments/Eucharist/communion. And while they are a very important part of Christian tradition, they don't guarantee salvation or restore someone to a relationship with Christ.

We believe they do, if they are received with faith. Every time I receive communion, Tom, our deacon, gives me the chalice and says "This is the true blood of Christ shed for the forgiveness of all your sins". We actually believe it forgives sins, because Christ himself says it is his blood shed for the forgiveness of sins. In many ways, we actually have a "catholic" understanding of the sacrament and liturgy, even if its not always explicit.

 

[FireDragon76]

I feel like baptism should be choice since it's a mark of a person joining/converting to Christianity. Some of your other posts suggest that you believe baptism is a gift of grace (Hope I'm not misrepresenting your beliefs on that). So I guess that's where the difference lies.

I think my denomination doesn't place a lot of emphasis on baptism. I was sprinkled with water a few times as a baby. As a kid who was forced to go to church (back when I wasn't really a Christian and didn't really understand what any of Christianity was truly about) I can remember many services "interrupted" (that's how I saw it because it took more time and I wanted to leave) by a baby getting baptized. Obviously I've grown spiritually since then and realize the significance, but I'm the kind of person that really needs a factual theology. To me, infant baptism doesn't do anything other than mark that the child will be raised in a Christian household, which to me is pointless, especially where I'm from as almost everyone claims to be Christian. In Europe I assume it's even more pointless since many people go to a church to get their baby baptized and never attend services after that.

An adult baptism would mean a lot more to me now that I'm actually a Christian. I would love to get re-baptized.

We don't view baptism as just a past event, it's more of a present reality we live in. We don't say "I was baptized", but, "I am baptized", baptisatus sum.

And might I suggest focusing on what other people do is wrong spiritually? You need to focus on your own relationship to God. You don't need another baptism to focus on that. Every time you say the Creed, you are confessing the same faith you were baptized into.