Should babies be baptized?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is something I'm a little torn on because I think the reasoning is kind of weak unless you believe in Original Sin and magical holy water, which I don't for either. I think the most valid argument in favor is the symbolism one from Calvinist churches and don't really think it's exactly a bad thing for parents to do though as long as they give the kid their own choice growing up instead of railroading them through a confirmation program. But I'd say now I identify with the thinking behind believer's baptism more.

Another non-denominational church in Minnesota I've heard has kind of a Moderate Hero-ish but not entirely unreasonable take on this, they let parents of new infants apply if they want to have their baby baptized or dedicated to be baptized later. However they will baptize anyone as an adult who requests it, including presumably someone baptized as a baby at that very church (though they haven't been around long enough for this to be an issue yet.)

My church's position is basically that they won't baptize babies but don't really insist on rebaptism for people who were baptized as a baby. I might get rebaptized though.

[ZuWo]

From a biblical perspective I'd say babies should not be baptized. Being baptized must be a conscious act which needs the consent of the person involved, that's why only adults who want to lead a Christian life should be baptized.

[dead0man]

From a biblical perspective I'd say babies should not be baptized. Being baptized must be a conscious act which needs the consent of the person involved, that's why only adults who want to lead a Christian life should be baptized.

Indeed.  Humans can't be "saved" by somebody else, it must be a choice they make on their own.  Kids get in by default, so it's not like unbaptised kids are somehow not loved by Jesus.  Honestly, the practice seems a little creepy to me.

(I was raised So.Baptist, so my biases may be in play here)

[Yelnoc]

No.  Sprinkling water on the baby's head does nothing else than get it wet and make the parent feel good on the inside.  It doesn't mean anything to the baby.

[useful idiot]

There's no Biblical evidence for it. I also think most people sitting in paedobaptist churches would be shocked to realize just how late the practice of infant baptism developed in Christianity. I haven't seen any compelling patristic evidence for its widespread occurrence until after the 4th century. Jerome, Chrysostom, Basil, Ambrose, and Augustine were all baptized as adults, despite growing up in Christian homes (we also know that Augustine was baptized by immersion). None of the material we have from the church fathers or historians prior to the 5th century indicates anything other than believer's baptism.

It actually pains me because I would be happy being a confessional Presbyterian or conservative Anglican, where I'm much more culturally at home than in the broader Southern Baptist Convention. It's kind of hard though when you're considered disobedient and subject to church discipline for neglecting the ordinance of "baptism"; all because you refuse to engage in a practice that is blatantly without merit and not really baptism at all (not to mention that you couldn't serve as an elder or a deacon).

The funniest example of infant baptism is in the Eastern Orthodox churches, where they actually immerse babies...at least they understand the word baptizo...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I have a tough time believing that a Presbyterian or Anglican church would ever subject someone to church discipline for disagreeing on baptism, or in fact anything for that matter beyond something seriously criminal (like using a church position to molest children). If they're anything like Lutherans I can't imagine anyone in a Lutheran church making a big fuss about it from my experience growing up...

From a biblical perspective I'd say babies should not be baptized. Being baptized must be a conscious act which needs the consent of the person involved, that's why only adults who want to lead a Christian life should be baptized.

Indeed.  Humans can't be "saved" by somebody else, it must be a choice they make on their own.  Kids get in by default, so it's not like unbaptised kids are somehow not loved by Jesus.  Honestly, the practice seems a little creepy to me.

(I was raised So.Baptist, so my biases may be in play here)

Honestly I think most people just want another opportunity for cute baby photo ops and why families often make such a big deal out of it, which isn't exactly "creepy". Plus pictures of a minister cradling a baby in front of the really happy looking parents look great on church websites.

[useful idiot]

I have a tough time believing that a Presbyterian or Anglican church would ever subject someone to church discipline for disagreeing on baptism, or in fact anything for that matter beyond something seriously criminal (like using a church position to molest children). If they're anything like Lutherans I can't imagine anyone in a Lutheran church making a big fuss about it from my experience growing up...

We're not talking about liberal Presbyterians in the PCUSA. Church discipline in conservative, esp. Reformed, churches is taken seriously. It can be administered for a lack of church attendance, having affairs or pre-marital sex, lack of church giving, refusing to submit to church leadership, or any number of other reasons if the congregant refuses to repent.

In your average Presbyterian Church in America congregation you can certainly attend without accepting infant baptism. In most you can be a member. You certainly cannot advocate publicly an opinion contrary to the Westminster standards, and you can't hold any leadership position or serve as a deacon. The only case of church discipline I've personally witnessed in a PCA congregation was for an extra-marital affair when the guilty party (husband) refused to repent. The teaching elder at the church told me that it was one of three cases he'd dealt with since the church started in the 90s, one of those cases being a Sunday School teacher who was advocating positions contrary to the standards.

Conservative Anglican churches are different because they operate under a different polity, I've heard of in-house discipline before but haven't witnessed it personally.

Discipline is more often practiced in Reformed or Reformed-leaning Baptist churches of course, I've witnessed it a number of times and it's never pretty (but I certainly think it's both necessary and ultimately positive).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I have a tough time believing that a Presbyterian or Anglican church would ever subject someone to church discipline for disagreeing on baptism, or in fact anything for that matter beyond something seriously criminal (like using a church position to molest children). If they're anything like Lutherans I can't imagine anyone in a Lutheran church making a big fuss about it from my experience growing up...

We're not talking about liberal Presbyterians in the PCUSA. Church discipline in conservative, esp. Reformed, churches is taken seriously. It can be administered for a lack of church attendance, having affairs or pre-marital sex, lack of church giving, refusing to submit to church leadership, or any number of other reasons if the congregant refuses to repent.

Wow. That's pretty creepy actually if they're keeping tabs on your church attendance or anything like that.

In your average Presbyterian Church in America congregation you can certainly attend without accepting infant baptism. In most you can be a member. You certainly cannot advocate publicly an opinion contrary to the Westminster standards, and you can't hold any leadership position or serve as a deacon. The only case of church discipline I've personally witnessed in a PCA congregation was for an extra-marital affair when the guilty party (husband) refused to repent. The teaching elder at the church told me that it was one of three cases he'd dealt with since the church started in the 90s, one of those cases being a Sunday School teacher who was advocating positions contrary to the standards.

I'm sure I had quite a few Sunday School teachers who would be "dealt with" if the ELCA operated under the same standards then.

Conservative Anglican churches are different because they operate under a different polity, I've heard of in-house discipline before but haven't witnessed it personally.

Discipline is more often practiced in Reformed or Reformed-leaning Baptist churches of course, I've witnessed it a number of times and it's never pretty (but I certainly think it's both necessary and ultimately positive).

What exactly can they do though beyond stripping one of their position and basically saying "don't come back"?

And what would happen if someone scheduled to speak showed up hung over? (As I mentioned in another post.)

[useful idiot]

What exactly can they do though beyond stripping one of their position and basically saying "don't come back"?

And what would happen if someone scheduled to speak showed up hung over? (As I mentioned in another post.)

Church discipline, when done correctly, isn't punitive, it's corrective. Revoking membership is only done as an absolute last resort, and even then it's EXTREMELY rare that one is asked not to show up during services. In any event, no one is placed under discipline for believing something, it's done because they're breaking rules. Joining a church means voluntarily submitting oneself to the authority of that congregation. If you join a church knowing what they believe, and then openly advocate a position that isn't in harmony with their confessional statement, then you're in sin, period. You need to be rebuked and told to stop. My problem isn't with Presbyterian churches practicing discipline, it's with the Westminster Confession...

Of course there are some whacko Independent Fundamental Baptist churches out there that practice an un-Biblical form of discipline that's vindictive, that's not what we're talking about. And there are un-Biblical forms practiced by power-hungry pastors who have no accountability themselves.

I don't know about someone showing up "hung over". If they were an elder and they made mention of the fact that they were hung over from the pulpit I'm sure they'd lose their position. I don't really think that's acceptable in any context. Even among Presbys, who are known for being drinkers...

[dead0man]

Honestly I think most people just want another opportunity for cute baby photo ops and why families often make such a big deal out of it, which isn't exactly "creepy". Plus pictures of a minister cradling a baby in front of the really happy looking parents look great on church websites.

My church did (does still I assume) a baby "dedication" thing.  Your parents "dedicate" to raise the baby in a Christian home with regular church attendence and what not.  Proud parents get to show off new baby, friends and family have lots of time to take pictures.  Baby gets a little New Testament bible that will never be used.  I was 6 days old for mine, I don't remember it, but I do still have the bible.

So, same thing, minus the water and dogma.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What exactly can they do though beyond stripping one of their position and basically saying "don't come back"?

And what would happen if someone scheduled to speak showed up hung over? (As I mentioned in another post.)

Church discipline, when done correctly, isn't punitive, it's corrective. Revoking membership is only done as an absolute last resort, and even then it's EXTREMELY rare that one is asked not to show up during services. In any event, no one is placed under discipline for believing something, it's done because they're breaking rules. Joining a church means voluntarily submitting oneself to the authority of that congregation. If you join a church knowing what they believe, and then openly advocate a position that isn't in harmony with their confessional statement, then you're in sin, period. You need to be rebuked and told to stop. My problem isn't with Presbyterian churches practicing discipline, it's with the Westminster Confession...

Of course there are some whacko Independent Fundamental Baptist churches out there that practice an un-Biblical form of discipline that's vindictive, that's not what we're talking about. And there are un-Biblical forms practiced by power-hungry pastors who have no accountability themselves.

Meh, this seems not so important to me considering that my criteria for joining a church has little to do with their "confessional statement" and more on things like if they actually play good music, not boring traditional church music or stuff like that awful Christian music radio crap, if anyone cares if you show up in a band shirt and ripped jeans, if the congregation is actually mostly youngs as opposed to your typical church congregation, and if people just stand around bored or raise their hands, jump and shake and all that.

Of course my church doesn't even have a formal membership anyway...

I don't know about someone showing up "hung over". If they were an elder and they made mention of the fact that they were hung over from the pulpit I'm sure they'd lose their position. I don't really think that's acceptable in any context. Even among Presbys, who are known for being drinkers...

I doubt he mentioned it at the actual church service, just something he was complaining about when we were out for drinks later in the day. I suppose the fact that the guy in question is an open homosexual alone would be enough for discipline in these type of churches though so it's kind of moot.

Honestly I think most people just want another opportunity for cute baby photo ops and why families often make such a big deal out of it, which isn't exactly "creepy". Plus pictures of a minister cradling a baby in front of the really happy looking parents look great on church websites.

My church did (does still I assume) a baby "dedication" thing.  Your parents "dedicate" to raise the baby in a Christian home with regular church attendence and what not.  Proud parents get to show off new baby, friends and family have lots of time to take pictures.  Baby gets a little New Testament bible that will never be used.  I was 6 days old for mine, I don't remember it, but I do still have the bible.

So, same thing, minus the water and dogma.

Yeah my church does that too. But we don't have the infant baptism tradition built in.

Really though my issue isn't so much with infant baptism as it is with the way confirmation is done in most churches that perform it. It reminds me of those drug free pledges that kids sign in elementary school, because you can get an elementary school kid to sign anything, but that doesn't mean jack sh!t for how they'll act five years later, much less the rest of their life. Getting a 13-year old to take a vow to their church for the rest of their life is even more ridiculous.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, because it's a nice tradition, and that is how these things are supposed to work.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Made me think of another interesting scenario: If I walked up to a Muslim on the street and said "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" and then threw a bucket of water on them, would anyone consider that Muslim to have now been validly baptized? I have a feeling there actually are people who would with how legalistic some are.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

No. People should be free to pick their own religion, not have it sprinkled on their head at birth.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Made me think of another interesting scenario: If I walked up to a Muslim on the street and said "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" and then threw a bucket of water on them, would anyone consider that Muslim to have now been validly baptized? I have a feeling there actually are people who would with how legalistic some are.

I'm pretty sure that, mostly, you would just get arrested.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I did it in a Somali neighborhood and ran away quickly, probably not. Not that I would do it anyway. I'm just pointing out how legalistic many are, like Catholic priests who argued the forced baptisms of Serbs and Muslims by the Ustase in WWII were still valid.