Is infant baptism as valid as believer's baptism?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think I vaguely remember BRTD having a heated argument about this before, but I'm not quite sure.

Anyway, the Episcopal Church recognizes "one baptism," "of any Christian tradition." Communion is offered to all who were baptized as infants, kids, or adults. I was baptized UCC as an infant, so a second baptism is not necessary according to my priest. And yet Jesus himself was baptized when he was at a mature age. (Matthew 3:13-17)

Irrespective of criticisms of the Episcopal Church on other stances it has taken, this is one area which seems to directly contradict Scripture simply based on Jesus' own baptism. I think the Catholic Church has a more correct view on, at least, confirmation - in which the person being confirmed has demonstrated knowledge and a desire to be confirmed in order to receive communion. But an infant is simply not mature enough to understand what is happening or why it's happening. And so I find myself somewhat at odds with my church here, but I'm open to arguments for why infant baptism is sufficient.

Is a baptism truly a baptism if the person receiving the Sacrament does not know what it means? Does the same logic not apply for other Sacraments?

[RINO Tom]

Obviously yes.

[jojoju1998]

Infant Baptism has less to do with " salvation " per se, and more of a broader picture of the " People of God." The New Covenant. Being part of the Church. And this isn't just a strictly Catholic View. I think the Presbyterians and Lutherans have similar beliefs.



The Believer's Baptism stuff is more Baptist/Evangelical but that has been the dominant form of American conservative christianity in the last 100 years.

[VBM]

Infant baptism defies common sense

[jojoju1998]

Infant baptism defies common sense

Infant Baptism does make sense if you look at it in terms of Covenant Theology, rather than in terms of salvation as defined  in the Americanist Evangelical world.

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/why-we-should-baptize-babies-the-case-for-covenantal-infant-baptism

[Open Source Intelligence]

This differs in Protestantism from one church to another. I am a Presbyterian (that attends a Methodist church now) and a person from the presbytery came to our church one day asking us the question do you baptize a person baptized as an infant? He said no because he's already been baptized. I don't really care for that explanation as a person has to know what they are accepting and acknowledge that, and an infant clearly cannot. Modern Protestant churches however do whatever and don't really get deep in the weeds on theology arguments such as this. Churches I've been to I've never seen infant baptisms. Everyone's been at least 8 or 9 I think. For contemporary Protestantism I think that's pretty standard.

[It’s so Joever]

Sure in that it’s all completely symbolic and has no bearing on actual faith.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

No, while baptism doesn't confer Salvation and isn't required for it, Jesus still did command us to be baptized as an external representation of an inward transformation.  That can't apply to an infant, so infant "baptism" isn't truly baptism, but just a baby getting wet.

Also, there's no Biblical precedent for sprinkling in a baptism.  A baptism should be a full immersion.

[LabourJersey]

I would assume the reason why Christ wasn't baptized until adulthood was because John the Baptist wasn't out conducting his own ministry in Christ's infancy.

Anyway, Baptism is the entrance to the Christian world, in my opinion. We enter the secular world in infancy without our own knowledge - I don't see anything wrong with entering the religious world in similar fashion.

(Though this reminds me of a question I've heard in a faith formation class: Why did Christ even need to be baptized? But that's a different discussion for another time).

[Open Source Intelligence]

No, while baptism doesn't confer Salvation and isn't required for it, Jesus still did command us to be baptized as an external representation of an inward transformation.  That can't apply to an infant, so infant "baptism" isn't truly baptism, but just a baby getting wet.

Also, there's no Biblical precedent for sprinkling in a baptism.  A baptism should be a full immersion.

Damn. My baptism wasn't a baptism. Although I was baptized in a Presbyterian Church by an ordained Baptist.

[Open Source Intelligence]

I would assume the reason why Christ wasn't baptized until adulthood was because John the Baptist wasn't out conducting his own ministry in Christ's infancy.

Anyway, Baptism is the entrance to the Christian world, in my opinion. We enter the secular world in infancy without our own knowledge - I don't see anything wrong with entering the religious world in similar fashion.

(Though this reminds me of a question I've heard in a faith formation class: Why did Christ even need to be baptized? But that's a different discussion for another time).

There's a whole side literature that the more lay believers largely don't know about as far as questions like that. I was in a session from the pastor about a particular issue and he was using the story of the Pharisees brought the woman accused of adultery to try and trap Jesus saying "the law says to stone her, what do you say?", and Jesus starts writing in the sand before telling them "let he who has not sinned throw the first stone". I thought about that and went up to the pastor after it ended to ask: "what do you think he was writing?" He effectively said there's a long list of literature on that point attempting to answer that, but the only correct answer is we don't know.

[RINO Tom]

No, while baptism doesn't confer Salvation and isn't required for it, Jesus still did command us to be baptized as an external representation of an inward transformation.  That can't apply to an infant, so infant "baptism" isn't truly baptism, but just a baby getting wet.

Also, there's no Biblical precedent for sprinkling in a baptism.  A baptism should be a full immersion.

Dr. Jordan B. Cooper does a great job describing why he finds the Baptist view on this misguided, and I encourage you to check it out.  There’s very clear evidence the early Church - which still had men who had known the apostles - was liturgical and baptized infants.  This whole “true Christianity was lost for a bit until WE figured it out” attitude that Baptists have on this is very … Mormon-esque.  There’s a reason ZERO of the Protestant Reformers disagreed with infant baptism.

[Cokeland Saxton]

Absolutely not. It was not the child’s choice to be baptized and thus not valid. My baptism is invalid since I was not yet two years old. Parents should wait until the child is old enough to make the choice themselves and teach them about what baptism means so that they are informed before making the decision.

[RINO Tom]

Absolutely not. It was not the child’s choice to be baptized and thus not valid. My baptism is invalid since I was not yet two years old. Parents should wait until the child is old enough to make the choice themselves and teach them about what baptism means so that they are informed before making the decision.

This requires that said parents can actually teach them what historic Christianity believes about baptism, which would be impossible at the church you seem to describe.

[wnwnwn]

If you are catholic, yes.
If you are an anabaptist, no.

[jojoju1998]

No, while baptism doesn't confer Salvation and isn't required for it, Jesus still did command us to be baptized as an external representation of an inward transformation.  That can't apply to an infant, so infant "baptism" isn't truly baptism, but just a baby getting wet.

Also, there's no Biblical precedent for sprinkling in a baptism.  A baptism should be a full immersion.

Dr. Jordan B. Cooper does a great job describing why he finds the Baptist view on this misguided, and I encourage you to check it out.  There’s very clear evidence the early Church - which still had men who had known the apostles - was liturgical and baptized infants.  This whole “true Christianity was lost for a bit until WE figured it out” attitude that Baptists have on this is very … Mormon-esque.  There’s a reason ZERO of the Protestant Reformers disagreed with infant baptism.

Yes. The Lutherans, Classical Presbyterians, and the Anglicans still practice infant baptism.

[Open Source Intelligence]

No, while baptism doesn't confer Salvation and isn't required for it, Jesus still did command us to be baptized as an external representation of an inward transformation.  That can't apply to an infant, so infant "baptism" isn't truly baptism, but just a baby getting wet.

Also, there's no Biblical precedent for sprinkling in a baptism.  A baptism should be a full immersion.

Dr. Jordan B. Cooper does a great job describing why he finds the Baptist view on this misguided, and I encourage you to check it out.  There’s very clear evidence the early Church - which still had men who had known the apostles - was liturgical and baptized infants.  This whole “true Christianity was lost for a bit until WE figured it out” attitude that Baptists have on this is very … Mormon-esque.  There’s a reason ZERO of the Protestant Reformers disagreed with infant baptism.

Yes. The Lutherans, Classical Presbyterians, and the Anglicans still practice infant baptism.

Lutherans and Episcopalians/Anglicans are on the Protestant spectrum closer to Catholicism, so that list doesn't surprise me.

One thing you see done now that's not infant baptism but similar is dedication, where the parents dedicate to raise a baby or infant according to Christian principles, and the family and church congregation concur that they will do their part to help raise the child.

[Skill and Chance]

No, while baptism doesn't confer Salvation and isn't required for it, Jesus still did command us to be baptized as an external representation of an inward transformation.  That can't apply to an infant, so infant "baptism" isn't truly baptism, but just a baby getting wet.

Also, there's no Biblical precedent for sprinkling in a baptism.  A baptism should be a full immersion.

Dr. Jordan B. Cooper does a great job describing why he finds the Baptist view on this misguided, and I encourage you to check it out.  There’s very clear evidence the early Church - which still had men who had known the apostles - was liturgical and baptized infants.  This whole “true Christianity was lost for a bit until WE figured it out” attitude that Baptists have on this is very … Mormon-esque.  There’s a reason ZERO of the Protestant Reformers disagreed with infant baptism.

I come down narrowly in favor of infant baptism and I mostly don't think it's a big deal either way.  However, there is actually a pretty reasonable "originalist" case for credobaptism.  It relies on Didache, dating to around 100 AD and the oldest surviving Christian text not in the Bible.  It was rediscovered in the 1870's after having been lost since the Middle Ages in the East and likely much earlier than that in the West (perhaps as early as the fall of Rome?), which could fit right into a restorationist narrative. 

Didache instructs the person being baptized to fast beforehand, implying they are old enough to choose when and what to eat.  Taken literally, it also states that the individual being baptized must first understand a list of teachings that includes prohibitions against rape, abortion, and fornication.  While it is open to pouring water as a backup plan (it is thought to have been written in a desert environment), it indicates a preference for baptism in a flowing river if possible.

The Catholic/Orthodox/high church Protestant counterargument would be that the procedures in Didache were specifically for adult converts from pagan religions.  Ironically, most modern Baptists would not assign Didache any doctrinal authority while the infant baptism denominations hold it in the highest regard. 

[VBM]

No, while baptism doesn't confer Salvation and isn't required for it, Jesus still did command us to be baptized as an external representation of an inward transformation.  That can't apply to an infant, so infant "baptism" isn't truly baptism, but just a baby getting wet.

Also, there's no Biblical precedent for sprinkling in a baptism.  A baptism should be a full immersion.

Dr. Jordan B. Cooper does a great job describing why he finds the Baptist view on this misguided, and I encourage you to check it out.  There’s very clear evidence the early Church - which still had men who had known the apostles - was liturgical and baptized infants.  This whole “true Christianity was lost for a bit until WE figured it out” attitude that Baptists have on this is very … Mormon-esque.  There’s a reason ZERO of the Protestant Reformers disagreed with infant baptism.

The infant mortality rate was a lot higher back then. I wonder if infant baptism was more popular back then because people weren't sure if their baby would go to Heaven if it was unbaptized?  Also, it was very very unlikely that a Christian peasant would convert to atheism or another religion, so it probably didn't seem to matter as much when it happened since the person was gonna be a Christian for the rest of their life

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Infant baptism is, same as adult baptism, founded in a promise to leave Egypt and journey towards the Promised Land, in this case made by the parents of the child who are vouchsafing before God that they will raise their child in the faith. Along these lines, "cultural" baptisms are a major abuse and it is incumbent upon the clergy to refuse to perform such.

[Skill and Chance]

     Infant baptism is, same as adult baptism, founded in a promise to leave Egypt and journey towards the Promised Land, in this case made by the parents of the child who are vouchsafing before God that they will raise their child in the faith. Along these lines, "cultural" baptisms are a major abuse and it is incumbent upon the clergy to refuse to perform such.

Interesting.  You are significantly closer to the credobaptist position than I would have expected!

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Infant baptism is, same as adult baptism, founded in a promise to leave Egypt and journey towards the Promised Land, in this case made by the parents of the child who are vouchsafing before God that they will raise their child in the faith. Along these lines, "cultural" baptisms are a major abuse and it is incumbent upon the clergy to refuse to perform such.

Interesting.  You are significantly closer to the credobaptist position than I would have expected!

     I wouldn't deny the efficacy of a cultural baptism; I just consider it gravely unwise to permit.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I would assume the reason why Christ wasn't baptized until adulthood was because John the Baptist wasn't out conducting his own ministry in Christ's infancy.

Anyway, Baptism is the entrance to the Christian world, in my opinion. We enter the secular world in infancy without our own knowledge - I don't see anything wrong with entering the religious world in similar fashion.

(Though this reminds me of a question I've heard in a faith formation class: Why did Christ even need to be baptized? But that's a different discussion for another time).

Unrelated to the OP, but to answer your question: Jesus was a moral exemplar who was baptized, took the Eucharist, washed his followers' feet -- essentially demonstrating how Christians ought to live, by imitating him and His way.

Your explanation makes sense and I do like some of the arguments in favor of infant baptism. Infant baptism is fine, but I do think believer's baptism (regardless of immersion versus sprinkling) is more meaningful simply because that person is mature and aware enough to understand it. I think that confirmation or a secondary affirmation -- from the believer and not just the words of a clergyman -- is appropriate.

[Mr. Smith]

Lean no. But I'm voting based on my ideals, rather than the reality.

I still favor the exact reasoning already laid out by ExtremeGOP, though I find the general age for constitutes a "believer" to still be too young and the clergy enforcing said rules ought to be more responsible towards the believers when making the choice.

If the clergy will treat this transformation wantonly as some churches have [I can confirm two for a fact,  but I'm open to more], then I find infant baptism to be justified. If the goal is to save people regardless of agency, why the pretense?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I agree more with believer's baptism, but I think both are valid. I've experienced both types of baptism.