Should babies be baptized?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eagles' Wings
  • Start date Start date
What does it hurt? My aunt is a serious Catholic, and she baptized my daughter. I would never try to take that away from her or be upset about it--she'd lost two sisters in one year and finds comfort in her faith, she finds comfort in my daughter because she takes after my mother.

If, she'd taken a kid and had him circumcised against the parents wishes, that's one thing, but how does it harm a child in any way that they care enough to baptize them?

I'm glad you asked. The reason it "hurts" and is dangerous is because there are many people who believe that being baptized as a baby means you're saved. That gives people a false sense of security (which is exactly why I believe that the enemy of God is behind this false doctrine, as with most other false doctrines.)

When a person is told that their baptism as a baby, their first communion and confirmation means they have a ticket to heaven....and that person grows up to be someone who doesn't even believe the Gospel or have a relationship with God... then they are unknowingly on the wrong path. Why, because they think they're safe (perhaps they don't even see or understand the need for salvation in the first place) but they're not.

We are not saved by empty rituals or ceremonies. That is religion, not truth.
 
Last edited:
Others are happy to follow the example of Jesus and bless their babies. No big deal.

I agree that baby dedication or blessing babies is biblical.

Of course that doesn't save either, but I think that everyone who is part of a baby dedication understands that. It's about the parents dedicating their child to God and making it known publicly that they will raise their child in a Godly home, so that their child will grow up to know the Lord.
 
I'm glad you asked. The reason it "hurts" and is dangerous is because there are many people who believe that being baptized as a baby means you're saved. That gives people a false sense of security (which is exactly why I believe that the enemy of God is behind this false doctrine, as with most other false doctrines.)

When a person is told that their baptism as a baby, their first communion and confirmation means they have a ticket to heaven....and that person grows up to be someone who doesn't even believe the Gospel or have a relationship with God... then they are unknowingly on the wrong path. Why, because they think they're safe (perhaps they don't even see or understand the need for salvation in the first place) but they're not.

We are not saved by empty rituals or ceremonies.
That is religion, not truth.

What makes you think it's "empty"? People who practice it consider it full of meaning. Adult baptism doesn't make you "saved" either. (that may be a belief in your particular church, but that doesn't make it true) If you're a Paulinist of any variety (Protestant, Catholic, etc), adult baptism is a "work"-and salvation by works is a no-no-even to Agustine.
 
I'm glad you asked. The reason it "hurts" and is dangerous is because there are many people who believe that being baptized as a baby means you're saved.

Can you provide us with a name of one Church which teaches this?
 
What makes you think it's "empty"? People who practice it consider it full of meaning. Adult baptism doesn't make you "saved" either. (that may be a belief in your particular church, but that doesn't make it true) If you're a Paulinist of any variety (Protestant, Catholic, etc), adult baptism is a "work"-and salvation by works is a no-no-even to Agustine.

I never said that adult baptism saves. So I'm not sure why you included that.

The reason it's empty is because the baby has no idea what is going on. It doesn't mean anything to the baby. It might mean something to the parents, but if they believe their child is saved or has his sin washed away because of the infant baptism, then they are believing a lie. That is why it is empty. There is no truth in it.
 
Can you provide us with a name of one Church which teaches this?

I said "people" - not a particular church.

I have talked to people (including some of my relatives, who grew going to catholic church) who have told me that salvation comes from being baptized as a baby. I remember having a conversation with my cousin about that. I was amazed that she believed that.

It wasn't as if it was a firm belief of hers... it was something she just assumed was true but hadn't given much thought to. That's why I said it is misleading ... because even if a particular church does not actually teach that it saves... there are many people who come from a catholic background who believe that it does.
 
I never said that adult baptism saves. So I'm not sure why you included that.

The reason it's empty is because the baby has no idea what is going on. It doesn't mean anything to the baby. It might mean something to the parents, but if they believe their child is saved or has his sin washed away because of the infant baptism, then they are believing a lie. That is why it is empty. There is no truth in it.
[h=3]Infant Baptism[/h] The Orthodox also practice infant baptism on the basis of various texts (e.g. Matthew 19:14) which are interpreted to condone full Church membership for children. This is generally based on a confession of faith for a child by his or her godparents. The Orthodox Church baptizes infants for the same reasons and with the same results as she baptizes adults.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Baptism
 
I said "people" - not a particular church.

I have talked to people (including some of my relatives, who grew going to catholic church) who have told me that salvation comes from being baptized as a baby. I remember having a conversation with my cousin about that. I was amazed that she believed that.

It wasn't as if it was a firm belief of hers... it was something she just assumed was true but hadn't given much thought to. That's why I said it is misleading ... because even if a particular church does not actually teach that it saves... there are many people who come from a catholic background who believe that it does.
Yup. And from non-catholic backgrounds, too.
 
On a related note:
Sicke Freerks (Frerichs, Frericx; also called Sicke Snyder), an Anabaptist martyr, who was beheaded 20 March 1531, at Leeuwarden, Dutch province of Friesland. Menno Simons writes, "Afterwards it happened, before I had ever heard of the existence of brethren, that a God-fearing, pious man, named Sicke Snyder, was beheaded at Leeuwarden, for being rebaptized. It sounded strange to me to hear a second baptism spoken of. I examined the Scriptures assiduously and meditated on them earnestly, but could find nothing in them concerning infant baptism." Van Braght's account of the execution in the Martyrs' Mirror contains several errors; the date is 1531 instead of 1533 as he has it; nor does Reitsma, who has examined the relevant archives, know anything of the torture van Braght mentions.

Early in 1531 Sicke Freerks, an honest and quiet tailor of Leeuwarden, was accused of heresy and given a trial. In the cross-examination it was revealed that he not only confessed Protestant doctrine, but considered faith a prerequisite for baptism. Two weeks before Christmas he had confessed his faith and been baptized at Emden.
Because he persisted in his faith he was condemned to death by the court of Friesland. He was beheaded; his body was tied to the wheel and his head put on a pole. Sicke was the first Anabaptist martyr in the Netherlands. The execution was publicly performed and made a deep impression. A drummer among the soldiers, who was a friend of Sicke's, began a tirade against Catholicism and had to flee. His wife Hadewyck later became an Anabaptist and was imprisoned with Elisabeth Dirks, but managed to escape.

Through his preaching Sicke Freerks founded a small circle of Anabaptists, who were adherents of Melchior Hoffman's doctrine, peacefully awaiting the return of Christ, and hoped that in 1534 the New Jerusalem would be established. They called themselves Bondgenooten (that is, Covenanters). Prominent leaders emerged from this circle, including Obbe Philips and Dirk Philips. About January 1534 Pieter de Houtzager, the emissary of Jan Matthijsz van Haarlem, led a number of this circle into fanaticism; Obbe and Dirk Philips rejected Houtzager's proposals. The followers of Obbe were called Obbenites. This was the group that Menno Simons joined in January 1536.

Sicke Freerks was obviously a convert of Melchior Hofmann's, as well as Jan Volkertsz Trypmaker of Hoorn, who was baptized at Emden, 15 November 1530, and was sent to preach in Amsterdam and North Holland. Sicke was presumably baptized by Trypmaker and sent out to Leeuwarden to spread the new faith there.
http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Sicke_Freerks_(d._1531)
 
The Apostles baptized MANY entire households, and the witness of the Church is that infant baptism was acceptable and commonplace. If it's wasn't acceptable and commonplace and considered to be apostolic, then it would not have been so widespreadly accepted by the early Church and the Church Fathers. I am sorry you can't see that or understand that and you take a strictly (one-sided interpretative) Solo Scriptural approach to this topic and make it into such a big deal. Christ said not to hinder the children from coming to Him. There is no greater gift to a baby than to be baptized in Christ.
no, no, no. Nothing about infant baptism. You are adding/reading into what was not there. No mention of infants in the "household". Besides a baby cannot recognize they ere in need of a Savior in the first place.
 
Baptism was taught in the seventies to pre-hospital care technicians (EMT's) for infants who were stillborn or suffered sudden infant death syndrome to comfort some parents. I believe the procedure was even described in some of the early basic EMT text books and was suggested, if the parents were comfortable with it, and the situation warranted it.
 
Last edited:
Baptism was taught in the seventies to pre-hospital care technicians (EMT's) for infants who were stillborn or suffered sudden infant death syndrome to comfort some parents. I believe the procedure was described in the early basic EMT texts which were published by Brady.

Welcome back to you too! :) I haven't seen you here in a while.

I think there are many parents who would feel comforted by things like that. I think it's unfortunate that people with good intentions sometimes put their faith in the wrong things, or find comfort in the wrong things. That's why knowledge is so important, as God strongly stated in Hosea 4:6.

Babies who die go straight to heaven. So if parents studied the bible, they would have the comfort that comes from God, not from religious ceremonies.
 
What makes you think it's "empty"? People who practice it consider it full of meaning. Adult baptism doesn't make you "saved" either. (that may be a belief in your particular church, but that doesn't make it true) If you're a Paulinist of any variety (Protestant, Catholic, etc), adult baptism is a "work"-and salvation by works is a no-no-even to Agustine.

Can you provide us with a name of one Church which teaches this?

TER, from your own references.

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
 
Of course babies should be Baptised. It's a Christian parent's duty to have their kids initiated into the family of God.
 
Of course babies should be Baptised. It's a Christian parent's duty to have their kids initiated into the family of God.
scripture? getting a baby wet with water does not save a babies soul. What is the point? A baby does not know they are in need of a savior and there is no evidence in the Word about infants being baptized, none.
 
Back
Top