Do you think a baby should be baptized?

[dragon_fly_7]

My parents only did it out of pressure from both of their families. They kept on nagging them to baptized me and practically everyone come from hispanic traditions and beliefs. My family is mainly composed of Christians and Catholics except my father who is agnostic and a couple male atheists.

 

In the end, I turned into an atheist and have been one for a very, very long time (even as a kid I started already doubting in god and everything about religion then as a teen I was already an atheist). I'm the only female atheist in the family.

 

So is it really worth baptizing a baby or toddler in the end? What if he/she becomes an atheist like in my case? It would be different if the child was a bit older and at an age where he/she understands what's going on and it's because of what he/she believes in.

[M30USA]

I say "no" for two reasons:

 

1) Being baptized, biblically, is done after a person has repented and been reborn of the Holy Spirit. It symbolizes in the material world what has happened in the spritual. And it's always the person's conscious choice--not the parents' or anyone else's. Since babies, as far as we know, cannot decide this on their own yet, they should not be baptized.

 

2) It seems that John the Baptist did not baptize babies.

[JFReyes]

For believers, it's the beginning of salvation. For non-believers it may be an opportunity to socialize among the clueless. In any case the child cannot be held responsible but if they become believers as they grow up they might appreciate it, instead of resenting the lack thereof. If they don't they'll shrug it off as their parent's folly. Pascal's Wager; do it.

[dragon_fly_7]

Yes, it definitely wasn't my choice at all. If I were to have understood what was going on, I would probably be crying in protest.

[somedude81]

I say "no" for two reasons:

 

1) Being baptized, biblically, is done after a person has repented and been reborn of the Holy Spirit. It symbolizes in the material world what has happened in the spritual. And it's always the person's conscious choice--not the parents' or anyone else's. Since babies, as far as we know, cannot decide this on their own yet, they should not be baptized.

 

2) It seems that John the Baptist did not baptize babies.

Exactly what I was going to say.

[quankanne]

baptizing babies? In my particular case, I say yes, simply because it's my faith tradition. It's my cultural tradition. And it's something I would very much want to hand on to my child because I know the impact it's had on me growing up with a parent who had a firm but simple faith.

 

however, that's just me. Not everyone is tuned into their faith to this degree, and that's okay. But to avoid baptizing a baby because you're worried it'll grow up to be atheist anyway is like saying "I'll marry so and so, but I'll always have the option to divorce" there's not much of a good-faith effort to support the initial relationship because fear is a greater factor than that faith in the relationship.

[M30USA]

baptizing babies? In my particular case, I say yes, simply because it's my faith tradition. It's my cultural tradition. And it's something I would very much want to hand on to my child because I know the impact it's had on me growing up with a parent who had a firm but simple faith.

 

however, that's just me. Not everyone is tuned into their faith to this degree, and that's okay. But to avoid baptizing a baby because you're worried it'll grow up to be atheist anyway is like saying "I'll marry so and so, but I'll always have the option to divorce" there's not much of a good-faith effort to support the initial relationship because fear is a greater factor than that faith in the relationship.

 

Repentence comes first, then baptism. This order is very important to understand. It can't be reversed. By baptizing a baby (or anyone) you can't guarantee repentance or even increase the odds. Remember that Jesus specifically said that being born of the Spirit is not the result of "human decision or a husband's will" (John 1:13). I take it this also means it's not a parent's, either.

Edited April 3, 2014 by M30USA

[bubbaganoosh]

Look. You might be a atheist. Your family might be Christians and they can be "goomba's" with a Jewish family down the street who parties with the Muslim family in the next town and all of you get together with Buddhist's an Hindus and all other religions. Is anyone really 100% sure? Are you sure there isn't a God what ever he or she maybe called?

 

What are you worried about. They pour water over the kids head and it's not like it's acid and there will be a big scar on his head. For all you know, you could be wrong or could be right so I find no big deal in the baptizing. But until your proven right, don't take the chance.

[angel.eyes]

There are Christians on both sides of the infant baptism debate, and the Bible provides examples that support both sides of the debate.

 

For me, baptism symbolizes one's conscious acceptance of Christ's sacrifice to save us, and is a representation of washing away your old life and sinful ways, and starting afresh on a clean, new faithful path in your life. Most of the examples in the Gospels support this take. Someone accepts Christ as his or her savior and declares this to the world symbolically by being baptized. But there are also many biblical accounts of a man being saved and his whole household (family, servants, and slaves) being baptized with him, for example throughout Acts and in 1 Corinthians. There is also Acts 2:38-39.

 

At the end of the day, parents want to do what's best for their children. I know at least some Christian parents (or in your case grandparents and extended family) really worry about what becomes of their children's souls should they die before they are at an age where they are able to make a conscious decision about their faith and belief system. I've seen quite a few Christian friends morph into very ardent proponents of infant baptism because of this.

 

Do what your faith in your heart calls you to do. Right now, you're an atheist. But none of us can predict your spiritual journey or final destination (or our own for that matter). Saul/Paul who was an aggressive persecutor of early Christians, would have been the last to predict that his trip to Damascus would be such a major turning point in his life. One of the national evangelists for Intervarsity Christian Fellowship was once an avowed atheist who burned Bibles in his front yard. Others renounce their faith and become atheists. Just stay open to what's in your heart.

[quankanne]

Repentence comes first, then baptism. This order is very important to understand. It can't be reversed. By baptizing a baby (or anyone) you can't guarantee repentance or even increase the odds. Remember that Jesus specifically said that being born of the Spirit is not the result of "human decision or a husband's will" (John 1:13). I take it this also means it's not a parent's, either.

 

I seem to recall a catechism class in which the priest talked about how, when a parent chooses to baptize their child, they do so in faith that the Spirit will be imparted, and that faith is held in good stead up to the point where said child becomes of the age of reason and further chooses to follow those faith footsteps (or not).

 

this link explains it a bit better than I can teachings on infant baptism – the Roman Catholic viewpoint.

 

it discusses how whole households were brought into the fold because they believed in Christ's teachings; the Acts of the Apostles illustrates Peter's teachings that the gift of the Holy Spirit through baptism is promised "to you and your children."

 

it all boils down to the tradition you embrace, but the result is the same, whether one is baptized as a baby or when they hit the age of reason: The spirit of God is definitely at work when someone is baptized!

[quankanne]

M30USA – something interesting sprung to mind with your post about order being important ... several years ago, the bishop of our diocese re-ordered the sacraments of initiation for those in "line" to receive them. Up until then (and still going on in a lot of Catholic dioceses in the US), it was "baptize the baby, prepare him for the sacrament of reconciliation ("confession," old school terminology), which then prepares him to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist," also known as First Communion, which generally takes place around age 7. More catechism (study of the faith), which prepares the child for confirmation, around middle school/early high school age.

 

the bishop here re-ordered the sacrament of confirmation to take place right after the sacrament of reconciliation, and THEN a child would make his First Communion. The thought was to take it back to how it was practiced by the Church centuries before; he also hoped that it would shake the mindset of people that confirmation was a sort of "graduation" ceremony, sacramentally speaking, and the kid didn't have to do anything else ever again to keep learning about the faith.

Edited April 3, 2014 by quankanne

[taiko]

In the religious traditions where infants are baptized part of the ceremony is supposed to be that sponsor promising to raise the child in the faith. However because they also for the most part teach that the actual act has supernatural significance often a grandparent or other family member who is a believer will force the issue and the priest will ignore all evidence that the child will not be raised in the faith and perform the sacrament anyway.

 

To the rest of the world sure go ahead and baptize to appease the parents, if the child comes to an evangelic's world view he will have a later believers baptism anyway. Even if he has no faith or another faith he will not believe in any supernatural act including him from that ceremony as an infant.About the only drawback will come at the time of marriage or remarriage if the Catholic Church is involved since if one of their priest baptizes you they hold that other church rules and disciplines which don't apply to others apply to you.

[pie2]

So is it really worth baptizing a baby or toddler in the end?

 

 

No, imo. I don't think God's in the practice of sending children (who can't fully understand) to hell.

 

 

What if he/she becomes an atheist like in my case?

 

 

Perfect example. I don't think your earlier baptism washes you from any of the danger of denying God as a free-thinking adult.

 

 

It would be different if the child was a bit older and at an age where he/she understands what's going on and it's because of what he/she believes in

 

 

Yes, I think it's different if the child is older. I always think that 12 (or thereabouts) is a crucial age. Not only did Jesus step out from under the wings of his parents at that age, but Piaget's studies show that that's when we begin to have formal thought-processes (analytical thoughts). So I think that's when we probably start to get to an idea about more abstract concepts like God.

[M30USA]

Nice, busting out with Piaget!

[pie2]

Nice, busting out with Piaget!

 

 

 

Heey!! Gotta put that education to use sometime, lol.

[TheFinalWord]

I say "no" for two reasons:

 

1) Being baptized, biblically, is done after a person has repented and been reborn of the Holy Spirit. It symbolizes in the material world what has happened in the spiritual. And it's always the person's conscious choice--not the parents' or anyone else's. Since babies, as far as we know, cannot decide this on their own yet, they should not be baptized.

 

2) It seems that John the Baptist did not baptize babies.

 

I basically agree with this...Baptism is symbolic of our "burial and resurrection":

 

Romans 6:

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

 

Colossians 2:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

I don't see how a baby can be baptized unless we believe they are capable of repenting.

 

However, I basically don't think its much of a theological debate with practitioners. It is mainly a cultural tradition. Most evangelical church's engage in "baby dedications", which to me seems to serve the same purpose, only they are theologically correct, of course (each denomination seems to think their take on these extra-biblical traditions is justified and everyone else's is wrong: notice there is no mention of this dedication tradition in the bible either). From a practical perspective: the parent's a making a declaration that they will raise their child to know the Lord.

Edited April 3, 2014 by TheFinalWord

[taiko]

The difference is that no supernatural occurrence happens or is claimed to happen with a child dedication.

[pie2]

The difference is that no supernatural occurrence happens or is claimed to happen with a child dedication.

 

 

Aside from saying a prayer together that the child grow to love God, I agree that a dedication isn't like a baptism in a supernatural/salvation way.

 

 

I think it's nothing more than a time of prayer for the baby's future, and as TFW said, a declaration from the parents to instruct the child in the ways of God. I love the dedications. They're so hopeful...and adorable.

[TheFinalWord]

The difference is that no supernatural occurrence happens or is claimed to happen with a child dedication.

 

Good point. What do you think though? When they ask us all to stretch our hands and pray over the family, is that not invoking the supernatural? I think with most of these traditions, however, there is a disconnect between the academic, theological side of things and the practical side of things. My guess is most of the time it is more tradition than theology. Theologically, I agree, infant baptism is not really consistent. But I think God probably puts up with a lot of theological inconsistencies with all of us Well me anyway

[Arieswoman]

Yes, IMO babies should be Christianed because it removes Original Sin.

 

(In UK if you are not Christianed you cannot be married in the Church of England, unless you become baptised at a later date.)

 

But being Christianed shouldn't be an end in itself. At the Service the Godparents make promises to help bring the child up in the Christian Faith. If they cannot guarantee to do that, then maybe they should not agree to be Godparents. Or maybe the parents should look at this more deeply.

 

I believe the Church should always be there for everyone but I must say I get a bit sick of what I call "4 wheeler Christians" - they come in a pram to be Christianed, in a limo to get married and a hearse for their funeral. The rest of the time we never see them in church.

[pie2]

I believe the Church should always be there for everyone but I must say I get a bit sick of what I call "4 wheeler Christians" - they come in a pram to be Christianed, in a limo to get married and a hearse for their funeral. The rest of the time we never see them in church.

 

 

 

 

That's funny!

 

 

But being Christianed shouldn't be an end in itself.

 

 

Too often though it is, and really accepting Christ isn't given a second thought. Kind of makes me think of the silver-spoon syndrome. Like a child who has always grown up with "privilege" may not stop to appreciate the gift he has.

[D-Lish]

It's a ridiculous tradition if you're not Christian- if you are, it would have significant meaning.

 

I'm an Atheist, but I'd participate in the tradition if it would keep the family peace.

 

Wouldn't being baptized have more meaning if it was a choice rather than a ritual?

 

I was baptized, but as soon as I developed a consciousness I knew I was an Atheist. Does that condemn me to hell if there is a hell- or does that baptism save me regardless?

 

The way I understand Christianity, aren't there many ways in life to achieve salvation? Constantine was wishy washy his whole life, but was apparently saved on his death bed by confessing his sins and embracing Christianity? He was never baptized, but apparently received his salvation regardless- and he's a revered figure in Christian teachings.

[taiko]

It's a ridiculous tradition if you're not Christian- if you are, it would have significant meaning.

 

I'm an Atheist, but I'd participate in the tradition if it would keep the family peace.

 

Wouldn't being baptized have more meaning if it was a choice rather than a ritual?

That is the position of the part of the Christian world which only does believer's baptisms and not infant baptisms. They are divided about the act being symbolic community building exercise and the result of a conversion or necessary to complete the conversion and salvation process

I was baptized, but as soon as I developed a consciousness I knew I was an Atheist. Does that condemn me to hell if there is a hell- or does that baptism save me regardless?

 

The way I understand Christianity, aren't there many ways in life to achieve salvation? Constantine was wishy washy his whole life, but was apparently saved on his death bed by confessing his sins and embracing Christianity? He was never baptized, but apparently received his salvation regardless- and he's a revered figure in Christian teachings.

 

The Catholics say you have a special mark placed on your soul but you still rejected Christ so your soul would not be saved. In the case of Constantine those who hold that you must be baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to be a Christian they hold out a doctrine of a baptism of desire. That Constantine or the third thief being crucified with Jesus would have been baptized if possible so in effect he was even if nobody pour water over the head or immersed him and said "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit".

 

There are a few groups notably the Quakers and the Salvation Army which do not do a ritual baptism but most consider them "true" Christians anyway. Meanwhile the official position of Rome that the Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Ingelsia Ni Cristo and Oneness Pentecostal are cults because the baptize in the name of the Son only or deny the divinity of Jesus.

[taiko]

Good point. What do you think though? When they ask us all to stretch our hands and pray over the family, is that not invoking the supernatural? I think with most of these traditions, however, there is a disconnect between the academic, theological side of things and the practical side of things. My guess is most of the time it is more tradition than theology. Theologically, I agree, infant baptism is not really consistent. But I think God probably puts up with a lot of theological inconsistencies with all of us Well me anyway

 

The Evangelical view would be that an individual's salvation has no bearing on the actions of another, like a priest saying I baptize you with the proper formulation or the church praying that your parents do a good job raising you so that you have faith upon the age of reason.

[sagetalk]

So is it really worth baptizing a baby or toddler in the end? What if he/she becomes an atheist like in my case? It would be different if the child was a bit older and at an age where he/she understands what's going on and it's because of what he/she believes in.

 

To be baptized means to become born again through water, but this birth is through God not through a woman. It should only be done to those who are willing, understand it, and want it. Otherwise, it has no meaning. Read about John the Baptist, he baptized Jesus in his thirties. It is a symbol to God that you are ready to die to your old self and live for him.

 

In short, no, you should never have been baptized.