Christians.....why baptize?
 

That's it. My Grandfather (an amazing man) really wants me to have my boy baptized and I (not real religious) don't see the point. I mean I have studied Christianity a fair amount and I consider the whole baptism thing one of the "man made" artifacts of the religion. Or one of the more palatable rules or laws carried over from the OT because it was palatable (as opposed to laws about stoning people that work on Sundays etc.. which were discarded).

Where am I wrong?

OK, I didn't really get that out right. I view it as a quaint symbolic ritual with no "magical" (for lack of a better word) efffects on the "salvation" of an innocent child.

You're not wrong. It really isn't fair of your grandfather to assume that his religious views are shared by everyone else. Bottom line, if it's not something that you and your wife really want to do, then by all means, don't do it.

I don't think it has anything to do with salvation. Heck, I was baptized as a child and now I'm an atheist. It didn't take, obviously. :>)

Mike

BTW...I love "Better Off Dead"...

Darwin is my God. Religious belief is mambo-jambo to me. Sure, I went along and baptized my four children to please their mother, oh and grand parents. The procedure in it self is actually quite nice, but the religious content means nothing to me.

But then again I know You Americans are regular church goers and believers in a greater extent than us Nordic heretics.. :D

I'm sure there's way more knowledgable people on here when it comes to religion, I'm a pretty recent catholic convert, and trying to futher educate myself as I go along. Baptism is to forgive the original sin that we are all born with, essentially forgiving us of the sinful nature that we have thanks to Adam and Eve, the originators of sin. It's also a way of being welcomed into the church, though that's not it's intended purpose. It's like starting your child out with a clean slate, at least from a religious standpoint. There are many cases of Jesus and others baptising people in the rivers from the Bible, so it's not a man made part of the religion.

PLEASE NO RELGION BASHERS


Ok, do you believe the bible tells us to have all our cildren baptized...like an order?

All children are born as atheists.

The way baptism was explained in my church (Lutheran) is like this:

Baptism is a gift from God. It doesn't save a child. It doesn't guarantee anything. There are no requirements one must meet to be baptized. The church just asks that only baptized people take communion.

I have never been baptized. The church my parents attended believed that baptism "marks" you as a child of God. They also believed that being baptized was a choice an adult made for himself/herself.

That's the way I take it, it's the church that wants it, not the Bible that commands it. ..."man-made"

* I am asking not telling.

Baptism is a sacrament of commitment—a commitment by parents to raise their child as a Christian. Unlike Jesus, who was an adult when he was baptized, an infant or small child isn't involved in the decision of whether or not he or she should be baptized (as the children sometimes make abundantly clear when you try and put a few drops of water on their heads in front of a bunch of people they don't know and aren't sure they like). The baby has nothing to say about it. Babies get baptized because moms and/or dads want them baptized, or sometimes because grandma and/or grandpa are putting pressure on the parents to have their grandchild baptized.

From whence comes this pressure? For the most part, it comes from a Roman Catholic understanding of baptism. My experience is that many, perhaps most, Protestants have a very Roman Catholic concept of baptism.

In the past, it wasn't unusual for Roman Catholic parents to go directly from the hospital to the church for a baptism. Why? According to the Roman Catholic Church, a child's soul is in jeopardy until she or he is baptized. If a child is an infant and dies unbaptized, the child will go to limbo, not heaven.

The concept of limbo is, in my opinion, the result of the Roman Catholic Church understanding the unchristian harshness of its own theology. I think they realized that God wouldn't send an innocent baby to hell. Therefore, they came up with this place called limbo for unbaptized babies who died before being baptized. If someone grows to be an adult and dies unbaptized, however, the Roman Catholic church believes that person will go to hell. So in their theology of baptism, limbo is for unbaptized babies; hell is for unbaptized adults (as well, of course, some baptized adults who are unrepentant sinners.).

Most other Christian sects aren't quite as harsh in this belief. God loves us all and that love is not contingent upon clergy praying over someone and putting water on their head. They do not believe that God will punish a child simply because the parents failed to get their child baptized. It is simply incompatible with the understanding of the gracious love of God. It is also contrary to the understanding of the very limited powers of the Church (To paraphrase Calvin, "Who woke up and appointed the church God?").

So if baptism is not about the child's soul, in our tradition, what is it? Back to where I began. Baptism is a statement of commitment by the parents to raise their child as a Christians. When you baptize a baby, you don't ask the baby anything. You do ask the parents if they believe in the God revealed in and through Jesus Christ. You also ask them if they plan to raise their child in that faith.

In addition, baptism is also a statement of commitment by the church. In the sacrament of baptism, the congregation is asked if they are prepared to help nurture this child's spiritual life. They respond in the affirmative verbally. More importantly, they respond affirmatively in deed by providing the children with a loving, nurturing environment.

One thing you may not have considered: if he ever wants to get married in a church, he may need to be baptized. It's easy now, a bit more trouble when you're 25 (that basin is kinda small).

Baptism ... ok, here's the story. The word comes from the Greek word "baptidzo," which started out as a nautical term, actually. A ship that sunk was considered "baptidzo'd." It later came to mean "to identify with," and carried the connotation of immersion. So a ship that sunk had been immersed in the water and thus identified with the water. It is now described as "wet." A piece of broccoli "baptized" in cheese sauce is _identified_with_ the cheese sauce.

The symbology for Christians, originally, was that it was a statement of faith. You'd go out to a local waterway and get baptized to demonstrate that you were serious about this "following Jesus" thing. In the same way that you were now _identified_with_ the water, you were considered _identified_with_ Jesus. Initially, it was not considered a requirement for salvation, merely an outward sign of an inward decision.

400 years later, the church of Rome decided that it was required for salvation. You've gotta be dunked or you're not saved. It didn't take anybody too long to say, "But what about my baby? I obviously can't dunk my baby in that nasty water!" Thus came about the practice of sprinkling infants to get them saved. Note that this is in stark contrast to the early Christian teaching.

As time progressed, the church in Rome continued to slowly change the policy. I don't remember off the top of my head when the shift to periodic baptisms happened, but the more modern idea was that, since baptism was required for salvation, and salvation was something you lost every time you sinned (yes, the church in Rome was strongly Armenian), you had to get sprinkled every chance you could. Thus, at the entrace to every cathedral, you'll find a little hand-sized pool of holy water. It's just enough to dip a hand in and make the symbol of the cross, getting you saved once again. This is the modern evolution of baptism in the Catholic Church, and can be clearly seen in the evolution of baptistries over the years. Note, again, that this is entirely different than the early teaching.

It is not, BTW, a leftover from the OT. The Jews never practiced baptism. John (the baptist) was the first one to do that, and people thought he was crazy, so he had to live in the desert and eat locusts.

So should your son get baptized? Well, ask him. "Son, do you want to make a public statement of faith, identifying yourself with the followers of Jesus?" (shrug)

Without enough coffee, I'll try...
Baptism is a declaration of faith and salvation. Jesus baptized people, so you could consider that as proof that it pleases Him. However, I've never found anything in the Bible that made me think babies need to be protected by Baptism - nor that it would hurt in doing so.

edit - wow, several long posts in the time it took me to submit my measly little verbage... very very slow this AM

Good info guys...

it's just that me and Grampa talk just about every day (he works here for fun) and this always comes up. I tell him to show me in the Bible where God tells me to bapitize my child. He says it's in there, but he hasn't produced it yet.

I have much distaste for the made-up rituals in religion, and though I know this happened "back then" I don't see it as a requirement and hence the churches demand for it irks me.

One more side note ... Paul, in his letter to Rome, talks a fair bit about "those with lesser faith." Don't look down on them because of their lack of faith, don't be a stumbling block to them because they aren't as strong as you, etc. It isn't hard to suggest, using a few of those segments of text, that you should baptize your son to make your grandfather happy. You've gotta ask yourself, "Is this the hill I want to die on?" (shrug) It's meaningless to both you and your son (and some might argue meaningless to God as well), but it's pretty important for your grandfather.

I would argue that text would appear to speak to my Grandfather. Telling him not to push in this instance as it creates angst.

You must understand that we get along VERY well and this is not an argument at all...rather a discussion.

Also, you don't just walk in to a church here and say "hey dunk the lil fella", they want a commitment from us to become "part 'O the flock" which ain't gonna happen.

All children are born innocents, not atheists. The society (parents guardians whatever) decides what direction to head them in, not god (should he/she exist). The whole idea that an innocent child cannot make it into heaven without being baptized is ludicrous. Any deity that would punish an innocent is not worthy of being a deity.

It's your choice, not your grandfathers. You can respect his beliefs while sticking to yours.

Can I get a AMEN:)

Seriously though, in the end what we think is "fair" may not matter, if you know what I mean:(
Heck I've already committed the unfogivable so I'm screwed no matter what:)

My only point was that atheism is defined as a lack of belief in god(s) and I'm pretty sure that babies don't "believe". They obviously have no concept of the idea of gods and spiritual beings at that point. They for sure don't actively "believe" (theist) at that point. Their future belief (if any) is more a function of their geographic location than any sort of pre-disposed proclivity towards a particular religion.

My 17 month-old daughter currently believes in the Wiggles.

Mike

Well, that's certainly an argument that could be made. It isn't one I'm going to participate in, though. ;)

Joel, what church is this? Baptism in the Catholic church is like Christening in the Presbyterian. Baptism in the Baptist church is like confirmation in the Catholic church. Yeah, that's me. Raised as a Presbyterian, First Baptist in college, and married a Catholic.

Grandpa is some flavor of Protestant Reformed, not the extremely strict version though.

Not exactly correct.

Atheism is "someone who denies the existence of god"
which is different than someone who lacks belief. If one is born and raised without ever hearing of god, they could lack belief, but they would not deny her existence.

Atheism is a choice, not a default.

Baptism is an affirmation of faith and important step in the Christian walk. John the baptist was very clear on this, and this in NT not OT. I was raised Lutheran and too many of them believe it is essential that a child get baptised as a baby so that they will receive God's gift should something happen to them as kids. The Lutheran church holds the same thing to be true with Confirmation (i.e. confirmation classes) typically done when the child is pre-adult/teen. Too many kids believe that once its done its like graduation; that's the end of it.

Baptism (water baptism) is something that is done when a person has made a concious decision to follow Christ, and base their life on the word (i.e. bible) and not that of church or man-made doctrine. It is a very personal decision to be taken seriously; and typically done publicly in the presence of their congregation, the individual must make that step on their own. Baptism is not for babies.

Skew it any way you want, its right their in the bible clear as a bell.

That said, I belong to an Assemblies of God congregation. We do baby dedications. Its a little dedication for a few minutes during the service, maybe 1 family with their baby/kids or multiple familes will have the whole congregation led by the pastor do a short prayer for the kids at the alter. Satisifes the rellies and introduces the kids. Could be for you, but you won't likely get that at a lutheran church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively believing in the non-existence of

Therefore, atheism is the default.

I see your point. "Atheism" technically means "without god", but you're right, the common meaning of the word now includes the "denial" part.

Good point.

Mike

BG,

Can you give me a little chapter/verse action on the baptism is a requirement thing? I seriously want to find it.

Merriam webster and what I have always meant by the words

atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

There has always been a conflict between Protestants and Catholics on the meaning of Baptism.

Need to see what it means in his church.

lendaddy,

Probably the quickest thing to do is go to the link I have attached, read the first two paragraphs and the scripture associated that is listed. If you read the first two paragraphs, that will pretty quickly make it clear it is not intended for babies. Read the whole page, and tell me if a 12 month old can understand any of that. The meaning of baptism is much deeper than its made out to be by many.

Requirement? Romans 6:4 does it for me, also found on that page.

Regardless, not doing a baby baptism is not an excuse for *not* bringing up your children to know Christ (not ever guiding them towards salvation).

http://www.bible.com/answers/awbaptiz.html

I've had exactly the same discussion with others before; and you'll find that baby dedication usually makes the grandparents pretty happy. Don't turn the subject into a negative for it surely doesn't have to become that.

God bless-
BG

My understanding of atheism vs agnosticism is that atheistic belief is an active effort to disprove the existence of god whereas agnostic just aint sure...lacks faith so to speak.

The Wiggles however are a different story altogether. :D

Atheists don't actively try and disprove something they don't believe in the first place. An atheist is simply a person who does not believe that god(s) exists.

Mike

Protestant Reformed is a rather new church founded in 1924. They broke off from another church over the doctrine of common grace. They believe in the predestined elect over the concept of free will.

http://www.prca.org/principles.html

Q. 74. Are infants also to be baptized?

A. Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the Christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.

Joel, there is every flavor of belief in the protestant churches. Been there. Don't like what this church doctrine says, go down the street.

What did your father do?

Babies are FAR more open minded than Atheists. To compare them is a great insult to babies, IMO.

I'd say the "what the heck" argument can be applied here, though I understand that a pastor might place pressure on parents as a condition of performing the ritual. I understand the pastor's point of view, but ultimately would call BS on that strategy if he takes it too far. It'd be a litmus test, in my view, to see what the pastor says when the following bottom line is presented: "No, we're not going to join your congregation, but here we are presenting you with an opportunity to baptize an infant in the name of Christ. Will you do this, or are you refusing?"

As most of you know, I am a practicing Catholic (not currently teaching CCD classes or anything), former Altar Boy, yadda yadda (who happens to also be comfortable around naked hippies) and you know my penchant for needling conservatives here, but I'll go ahead and give you the Church's position. Basides the sin you commit yourself (we all do, by choice, things we know are wrong), there is Original Sin. Sin we carry by association. By the nature of our fallen condition. Factually, we are separated from God. Another way to illustrate it is to point out what seems obvious to me, that being in the presence of God is impossible while you are "blemished." In order to achieve that, you will need to be completely unstained, and baptism removes the stain you have, but did not bring on yourself through your selfish (all sin is a matter of selfishness) decisions. That's somewhat of a description of the Church's position.

Now, I understand the head-scratching nature of a theology that seems to conclude that a perfectly innocent newborn baby would not be welcomed into God's arms. It is ludicrous to suggest that these little angels are sent to hell. They are not. But limbo is not regarded by me as a silly "oops" fill-in excuse for a failed theology. We make words and phrases and sentences to describe what we can nether describe, nor understand. So, when some of this stuff is head-scratching, the folks who think they are brilliant go to town pointing out how smart they are compared to Christians. Let's just say there are people they fail to impress this way.

My answer to many of these conundrums (babies not getting to go to Heaven, third world humans going to Hell because they've never even heard of Jesus Christ, and other assorted head-scratchers): It is my expectation that God is more generous, and more loving, than any of us can possibly fathom. In fact, as I look around me and see life, I think that's already irrefutably obvious (except that the geniuses keep trying). I think that salvation is something you can fail to choose. But I also think God is charitable and merciful beyond understanding.

Len, if you had a chance to put a penny in a well, and you knew that this would ensure that a certain terrible financial calamity would not befall your child, would you invest the penny?

And Atheists are FAR more open-minded than christians.

Fair enough, but there are many more fountains on this path.:)

So the same god that hates liberals, homosexuals and Californians actually loves babies and tribal bushmen; what about the babies of liberal bushmen? Do they ro-sham-bo to get into heaven? What about gay bushmen?

How old was Christ when he was baptized? Late 20's early 30's?

Model your sons life after Christs and let your grandfather know thats what you are doing, I would imagine he cannot argue with you on that.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I've known a good number of atheists, who I consider very very different from agnostics, and I think it is fascinating that they think they are open-minded while they argue that the existence of God is a closed question.

Live with his parents until his 30's, no job, hang around with his friends all day turning water into wine and getting into trouble with the authorities?

Nope. God does not hate anyone. A careful read of the second to last paragraph of my long post above summarizes my beliefs regarding God's relationship to everyone, including serial killers. But some of these people will deliberately choose to turn their backs on Him. It is not He who dooms people. It is we. His gift to us, besides corporeal life, is this choice.

Atheists are not closed-minded to the existence of god - it's just that they typically employ a more critical analysis of the evidence that he exists than the average theist.

There is fascination on both sides of the fence, I assure you.

Mike