Is christianig a baby baptism
- Thread starter Isdaniel
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I
Children are innocent. Until the age that they become accountable (which varies) they are Gods already. So, if they were to die they would go to heaven.
If the mentally handicapped were unable to understand the Gospel then they to would be exempt.
When a person goes down into the waters of baptism they are dieing to their old self just as Christ died, then when they are raised up out of the water they are a new creature just like Christ who was resurrected. Then they receive the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is much more than an outward sign. It is putting off the flesh, putting on the Spirit.
If the mentally handicapped were unable to understand the Gospel then they to would be exempt.
When a person goes down into the waters of baptism they are dieing to their old self just as Christ died, then when they are raised up out of the water they are a new creature just like Christ who was resurrected. Then they receive the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is much more than an outward sign. It is putting off the flesh, putting on the Spirit.
I don't see any Scriptures against baptizing your cat.
What's your point?
Babies are born sinless and pure of heart.
Baptism doesn't make you part of Christ's Body, receiving Christ does.
A severely retarded person should get baptized at the same age as everyone else should:
When they are a new born-again Christian.
If they are so severely retarded that they are unable to
understand the concepts of God, sin, salvation, etc.,
I don't believe God would damn them.
God will Judge them fairly, just like He will everybody.
What's your point?
Babies are born sinless and pure of heart.
Baptism doesn't make you part of Christ's Body, receiving Christ does.
A severely retarded person should get baptized at the same age as everyone else should:
When they are a new born-again Christian.
If they are so severely retarded that they are unable to
understand the concepts of God, sin, salvation, etc.,
I don't believe God would damn them.
God will Judge them fairly, just like He will everybody.
My point is that we are all born in sin (Psalm 50), we all have a fallen nature and we must reborn in Christ, through baptism. The fact that a baby doesn`t realise that he is getting baptised shouldn`t be an impediment to get it (just like the baptism of a retarded person shouldn`t be refused on the motive that the person isn`t capable of aknowledging Jesus Christ on a mental-intelligent level).
P.S.: The only creation of God that has sin is us, humans (remember the fall of Adam and Eve). A tiger, even when he kills, is still sinless and perfect.
P.S.: The only creation of God that has sin is us, humans (remember the fall of Adam and Eve). A tiger, even when he kills, is still sinless and perfect.
baptism and the christening of a child are two totally different things; i think (almost) all of us agree with that, and that it is true.
both are outward signs of an inward decision, change or belief. neither commend you or a child to God, and neither condemn you. both are public acts of dedication.
notwithstanding what disagreement you may bring about the importance of the physical act of baptism, by sprinkling, immersion, fire hose, rain, or w/e you feel like the best way to get the point across is, when comparing it to the rite of circumcision -- it isn't the child that is held accountable to the promise made by the rite, or in any way purified or brought into fellowship by it (circumcision is nothing - neither is water baptism, which is a thing done by men, for men. see the epistles in the new testament for details) -- it's the parents that both circumcision and child christening bind with vows.
in Exodus 4:24-26, we're given the account of God ready to strike Moses dead, because he had not circumcised his children. not the children who were uncircumcised.
both are outward signs of an inward decision, change or belief. neither commend you or a child to God, and neither condemn you. both are public acts of dedication.
notwithstanding what disagreement you may bring about the importance of the physical act of baptism, by sprinkling, immersion, fire hose, rain, or w/e you feel like the best way to get the point across is, when comparing it to the rite of circumcision -- it isn't the child that is held accountable to the promise made by the rite, or in any way purified or brought into fellowship by it (circumcision is nothing - neither is water baptism, which is a thing done by men, for men. see the epistles in the new testament for details) -- it's the parents that both circumcision and child christening bind with vows.
in Exodus 4:24-26, we're given the account of God ready to strike Moses dead, because he had not circumcised his children. not the children who were uncircumcised.
I believe baby baptism does nothing, is a false teaching and at times can give a person false hope. Baptism is about confessing your sins, turning away from our old lives and walking in the new. What sin has a baby done? What old life has it to walk away from? I know some people who were baptised as children and believed they will go to heaven just because of this and refuse to listen to any other way.
I
Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
(Mat 18:10 KJV)
Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. (Mat 18:14 KJV)
Children are already His.
(Mat 18:10 KJV)
Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. (Mat 18:14 KJV)
Children are already His.
B
Christening is a ceremony of one being baptized or being dedicated with water, accompanied by giving a Christian or biblical name to a baby right there and then. Though I went through this process, I was already named. But once I accepted Christ at 14-15, I was born again, then was baptized a year later for my faith. Did it hinder my faith? Of course not. I'm glad my parents did such a thing because they cared, but it wasn't connected to my salvation. Now Catholics and such believe this makes them a believer or saved, which it is not. You can be christened as a baby and grow up satanic, or atheistic. It's not valid for salvation.
"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes" (I Corinthians 11:23- 26).
How can a baby or a child take communion and proclaim the Lord's death if they don't have the mental capacity to understand what it is in the first place?
How can a baby or a child take communion and proclaim the Lord's death if they don't have the mental capacity to understand what it is in the first place?
An overview of the early church’s attitude towards infant baptism can be found in Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Emergence of the Christian Tradition (100-600), (pp. 290-292). The earliest mention of infant baptism was by Tertullian (c. 160-220) who voiced skepticism about the practice of baptizing infants. The renowned Alexandrian theologian, Origen (185-254), admitted infant baptism to be part of the church tradition going back to the Apostles even as he struggled to articulate a clear rationale for the practice. With the church father Cyprian (c. 200-258) we find infant baptism defended on the basis of original sin. Of the three sources mentioned here only Cyprian is regarded as a church father. J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines noted while the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist were universally practiced in the early Church there was very little evidence of a systematic sacramental theology at the time of the fourth and fifth centuries (p. 422 ff.). This points to the sacraments and Liturgy preceding theology in the early Church.
Dating infant baptism to AD 200 is based on a restrictive reading of the evidence. The evidence is clear that the first mention of infant baptism took place circa 200 which means that its origin can be placed earlier than 200. Given Origen’s testimony that infant baptism has apostolic roots and the absence of contrary evidence, we can assume that infant baptism dates back to the early days of the church, even the Apostles. Given Christianity’s Jewish roots and the established practice of infant circumcision among Jews, it should be no big leap to infant baptism among Christians.
Here u can search and read.
Dating infant baptism to AD 200 is based on a restrictive reading of the evidence. The evidence is clear that the first mention of infant baptism took place circa 200 which means that its origin can be placed earlier than 200. Given Origen’s testimony that infant baptism has apostolic roots and the absence of contrary evidence, we can assume that infant baptism dates back to the early days of the church, even the Apostles. Given Christianity’s Jewish roots and the established practice of infant circumcision among Jews, it should be no big leap to infant baptism among Christians.
Here u can search and read.
How can a baby be “born again” with no personal faith before he/she has heard the Gospel being preached? Or what is the point of infant baptism?
This question defines faith in Christ narrowly in terms of an intellectual acceptance of certain precepts on who God is (God is loving and just), what human nature is like (sinful and fallen), what Christ has done for us (died on the Cross for our sins), and the expected response (saying the “sinners prayer” to receive Christ into your heart). This intellectual understanding of faith has resulted in certain branches of Protestants debating among themselves about the “age of accountability.”
Evangelicals have projected their subjective emotionalism into the phrase “born again.” Being “born again” is not an emotional experience as it is a new life in Christ. Once we were living life apart from Christ, but now we put our faith in Christ and come under his authority through baptism. In Genesis 17 when Abram entered into a covenant with Yahweh via circumcision, he took on a new name “Abraham” signifying his new life as a follower of Yahweh. Genesis 17 is about a change in relationship with God, it was not about Abram having an emotional “born again” experience.
If we look at what the Bible has to say about the spiritual capacity of young children the answer might surprise us. Luke reports that when the Virgin Mary entered into Elizabeth’s home and greeted her that the baby inside Elizabeth’s womb “leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:41, 44) John the Baptist’s pre-natal response to the presence of the Incarnate Logos points to our desire for God in the primordial core of our being. An infant may not have a fully developed intellect, but it possesses the ability to respond to love. This is because the ability to love and respond in love is foundational to our humanity. Faith as the ability to trust someone is critical to our being able to love another person. That is why the betrayal of trust is so damaging to our being able to love another. This relational approach to faith can be seen in Orthodoxy’s Holy Week services which mourn Judas’ betrayal of Christ. This is something I did not learn as a Protestant.
But what is Jesus’ attitude about the spiritual capacity of children? The incident of Jesus blessing the little children appears in all three synoptic Gospels. Where Matthew and Mark used the general term for children παιδιον (paidion), Luke used the more precise term βρεφος (brephos) which can mean infant and new born, and even unborn children.
Our understanding of the spiritual capacity of children will be consequential for our understanding of their place in church. Because the sermon is the focal point of many Protestant worship services, many infants are sent off to the child care ministry. They are not expected to be in main worship service. It is by and large assumed that the main worship service is for adult members.
In Orthodoxy the general understanding is that children, even young infants, belong in the Liturgy. They may not fully comprehend what is going on but they are in the presence of God. Orthodoxy believes this exposure is important for their spiritual growth. Furthermore, as a sign of their inclusion in the kingdom of God, children are given Holy Communion. The practice in many Orthodox parishes is to let the children go up first to receive Communion followed by the grownups. For me this stands in stark contrast to my Protestant experience where I would see parents go up to receive Communion while their children remained behind because they have not yet made a profession of faith.
This question defines faith in Christ narrowly in terms of an intellectual acceptance of certain precepts on who God is (God is loving and just), what human nature is like (sinful and fallen), what Christ has done for us (died on the Cross for our sins), and the expected response (saying the “sinners prayer” to receive Christ into your heart). This intellectual understanding of faith has resulted in certain branches of Protestants debating among themselves about the “age of accountability.”Evangelicals have projected their subjective emotionalism into the phrase “born again.” Being “born again” is not an emotional experience as it is a new life in Christ. Once we were living life apart from Christ, but now we put our faith in Christ and come under his authority through baptism. In Genesis 17 when Abram entered into a covenant with Yahweh via circumcision, he took on a new name “Abraham” signifying his new life as a follower of Yahweh. Genesis 17 is about a change in relationship with God, it was not about Abram having an emotional “born again” experience.
If we look at what the Bible has to say about the spiritual capacity of young children the answer might surprise us. Luke reports that when the Virgin Mary entered into Elizabeth’s home and greeted her that the baby inside Elizabeth’s womb “leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:41, 44) John the Baptist’s pre-natal response to the presence of the Incarnate Logos points to our desire for God in the primordial core of our being. An infant may not have a fully developed intellect, but it possesses the ability to respond to love. This is because the ability to love and respond in love is foundational to our humanity. Faith as the ability to trust someone is critical to our being able to love another person. That is why the betrayal of trust is so damaging to our being able to love another. This relational approach to faith can be seen in Orthodoxy’s Holy Week services which mourn Judas’ betrayal of Christ. This is something I did not learn as a Protestant.
But what is Jesus’ attitude about the spiritual capacity of children? The incident of Jesus blessing the little children appears in all three synoptic Gospels. Where Matthew and Mark used the general term for children παιδιον (paidion), Luke used the more precise term βρεφος (brephos) which can mean infant and new born, and even unborn children.
But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” (Luke 18:16; NIV)
This incident contains a powerful lesson about the accessibility of the kingdom of God. It is for those who have an open heart like little children. It does not teach that the children should wait until they are old enough to understand before they can enter the kingdom of God. The phrase “enter the kingdom of God” is a synonym for entering into a covenant relationship with Christ. This phrase crops up in Jesus’ night conversation with Nicodemus (see John 3:5). Read in the larger context of the entire chapter Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus in the first half of John 3 dovetails with the second half which describes how Jesus’ baptism was superseding that of John the Baptist. The message behind the need to be “born again” was not about an emotional spiritual experience but about a new life in Christ through the sacrament of baptism.
Our understanding of the spiritual capacity of children will be consequential for our understanding of their place in church. Because the sermon is the focal point of many Protestant worship services, many infants are sent off to the child care ministry. They are not expected to be in main worship service. It is by and large assumed that the main worship service is for adult members.
In Orthodoxy the general understanding is that children, even young infants, belong in the Liturgy. They may not fully comprehend what is going on but they are in the presence of God. Orthodoxy believes this exposure is important for their spiritual growth. Furthermore, as a sign of their inclusion in the kingdom of God, children are given Holy Communion. The practice in many Orthodox parishes is to let the children go up first to receive Communion followed by the grownups. For me this stands in stark contrast to my Protestant experience where I would see parents go up to receive Communion while their children remained behind because they have not yet made a profession of faith.
I think people need to understand the roots of infant baptism and why it was practiced. The main reason why it was practiced is because the infant mortality rate was high in the days that medical needs were not as accessible as they are today. Parents would often request that their children be baptized out of fear their children would go to hell. The Bible does indeed record events where whole households were baptized. However, Scriptures do not indicate whether children were or were not involved. That being said, since the reasons it was practiced back then was due to a high infant mortality rate, it is only logical to assume it need not be practiced anymore because medical care is easier to be accessed. I also must mention that just because it was practiced does not make it theologically correct although their intentions may have meant well.
Tertullian is the earliest church writer to talk about infant baptism and does not like it. For him to disagree with it, it must mean there are some people who are baptizing their infants. In the ritual itself, in the importance of the question and answers, this implies the person has to be able to say "i believe" to be baptized. The general pattern is adult baptism though. By the time of Cyprian, he is more supportive of the baptism of infants. In amongst the burial tombs, there are inscriptions of the baptism of children whose baptismal and death dates are very close in time. A general working theory to answer why the practice occurred was a recognition of the high mortality rate of the infant world for infants as I stated earlier. It seems like the practice emerged just out of this. Parents recognized death was near and wanted baptism to help them through that process. By the time of the middle ages, if you are born into a Christian home, you are baptized as an infant. Only from a pagan tribe, you were baptized as an adult.
Tertullian is the earliest church writer to talk about infant baptism and does not like it. For him to disagree with it, it must mean there are some people who are baptizing their infants. In the ritual itself, in the importance of the question and answers, this implies the person has to be able to say "i believe" to be baptized. The general pattern is adult baptism though. By the time of Cyprian, he is more supportive of the baptism of infants. In amongst the burial tombs, there are inscriptions of the baptism of children whose baptismal and death dates are very close in time. A general working theory to answer why the practice occurred was a recognition of the high mortality rate of the infant world for infants as I stated earlier. It seems like the practice emerged just out of this. Parents recognized death was near and wanted baptism to help them through that process. By the time of the middle ages, if you are born into a Christian home, you are baptized as an infant. Only from a pagan tribe, you were baptized as an adult.
J
I had my baby sprinkled and dedicated her to the Lord.
When she came of age, she chose to be immersed in Baptism
as her act of receiving Christ in her life. My other 2 were
old enough to make decision for themselves and chose to be
Baptized for the reason we are. Repentance from sin, and
giving life to Christ.
It never occurred to me anyone would think she was being
Baptized when we dedicated her. I believe however it does
have special purpose as we give them over to the Lord by
the act.
When she came of age, she chose to be immersed in Baptism
as her act of receiving Christ in her life. My other 2 were
old enough to make decision for themselves and chose to be
Baptized for the reason we are. Repentance from sin, and
giving life to Christ.
It never occurred to me anyone would think she was being
Baptized when we dedicated her. I believe however it does
have special purpose as we give them over to the Lord by
the act.