toldailytopic: Infant baptism: what do you think of it?

[zippy2006]

I don't actually need it. Baptism means submersion. Who is going to submerse an infant in water?

Your original point was that young children were not counted among the "entire households" of ancient families, specifically:

Are you seriously so ignorant of history and ancient cultures that you think children were counted among "entire households" in instances such as these.

Now, before we move on to other arguments, are you willing to substantiate your claim or are you dropping that claim?

 

[some other dude]

I don't actually need it. Baptism means submersion. Who is going to submerse an infant in water?

a swim instructor?

 

[zippy2006]

lol...it isn't found in Scripture, get it?

Scripture says that "entire households" were baptized. At first glance that surely includes infants. So it is in Scripture, unless you have some reason for us to believe that "entire household" would not include the babies in the household. :idea:

 

[bybee]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for December 5th, 2011 10:22 AM

toldailytopic: Infant baptism: what do you think of it?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

It is interesting how wrought up some people get over this custom/rite of the Church.
It certainly cannot harm an infant when with the best of intentions he/she is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
I think of it as putting a protective spiritual shield round about one's beloved child until such time as the child freely accepts the Holy Spirit.
Even if it should be that I am the only one comforted by this rite, still, it is a blessing.

 

[sky.]

Scripture says that "entire households" were baptized. At first glance that surely includes infants. So it is in Scripture, unless you have some reason for us to believe that "entire household" would not include the babies in the household.

So does the Catholic denomination practice infant baptism because they think that "baptism" saves a person? Or does the Catholic denomination baptise infants because they believe that the Catholic denominations baptism is the only one God will accept?

I still don't know why the Catholic denomination baptises infants. If you feel so strongly about it then what is the Catholic denominations doctrinal statement on infant baptism?

 

[zippy2006]

I still don't know why the Catholic denomination baptises infants.

Because infant baptism is Scriptural. We baptize infants for the same reason Paul did.

If you feel so strongly about it then what is the Catholic denominations doctrinal statement on infant baptism?

We believe that everyone should be baptized (Jn 3:5). That includes infants. Scripture seems to say the same thing. If you want an explanation of the Catholic view of baptism it can be found here. Or here.

:e4e:

 

[Lighthouse]

Your original point was that young children were not counted among the "entire households" of ancient families, specifically:

Now, before we move on to other arguments, are you willing to substantiate your claim or are you dropping that claim?

I already said it isn't a scriptural issue. It's just historical precedent.

In Scripture, however, they did not have any rights to be a part of the decisions until they were 20.

And, as I pointed out, no one in their right minds is going to submerge an infant in water.

a swim instructor?

Really? They'll dunk an infant completely underwater?

Because infant baptism is Scriptural. We baptize infants for the same reason Paul did.

Where is it recorded that Paul did such?

 

[zippy2006]

I already said it isn't a scriptural issue. It's just historical precedent.

What source are you referring to Lighthouse?

In Scripture, however, they did not have any rights to be a part of the decisions until they were 20.

But they were part of the household before they were 20.

And, as I pointed out, no one in their right minds is going to submerge an infant in water.

Have you ever been to Israel? A large percentage of Israel is rocky desert. Submersion has never been an absolute requisite for baptism, precisely because many people did not have access to such large amounts of water. That's why different regions had different rules about what constituted baptism.

Where is it recorded that Paul did such?

When he baptized "entire households."

 

[Lighthouse]

What source are you referring to Lighthouse?

But they were part of the household before they were 20.

Have you ever been to Israel? A large percentage of Israel is rocky desert. Submersion has never been an absolute requisite for baptism, precisely because many people did not have access to such large amounts of water. That's why different regions had different rules about what constituted baptism.

When he baptized "entire households."

First off you're a moron if you think baptism required a natural body of water. Baptismal pools can be made.

Secondly it is an assumptive argument from silence to say there were infants in said households.

And one is not considered "of the household" if they cannot take part in the decision making for the household.

 

[some other dude]

And one is not considered "of the household" if they cannot take part in the decision making for the household.

No, I think you're wrong here. I'm pretty sure that slaves were counted as a part of the household.

 

[Lighthouse]

No, I think you're wrong here. I'm pretty sure that slaves were counted as a part of the household.

Scripture?

 

[some other dude]

Really? They'll dunk an infant completely underwater?

Sure, they love it!

 

[Lighthouse]

Sure, they love it!

That's not an infant; that's a toddler.

 

[zippy2006]

First off you're a moron if you think baptism required a natural body of water. Baptismal pools can be made.

Go back to the time of ancient Rome and see how many people had access to artificial baths. Ever wonder why the Roman aqueducts and the Roman baths were so celebrated? :idea:

Secondly it is an assumptive argument from silence to say there were infants in said households.

No, it's not. An infant is part of an "entire household." That is quite obvious. If there is some special reason for us to believe otherwise, please present it.

And one is not considered "of the household" if they cannot take part in the decision making for the household.

According to your claim, anyone under the age of 20 would then not be considered part of the household. That's rather absurd at face value. Do you have any source substantiating your claim?

 

[some other dude]

Scripture?

Too many sites blocked here at work for the search I want to do. I'll try when I get home.

 

[some other dude]

That's not an infant; that's a toddler.

Search "infant swim"


or "waterbirth"

 

[Lighthouse]

Go back to the time of ancient Rome and see how many people had access to artificial baths. Ever wonder why the Roman aqueducts and the Roman baths were so celebrated? :idea:

Thank you for proving my point.

No, it's not. An infant is part of an "entire household." That is quite obvious. If there is some special reason for us to believe otherwise, please present it.

Then show me.

According to your claim, anyone under the age of 20 would then not be considered part of the household. That's rather absurd at face value. Do you have any source substantiating your claim?

It was at twenty when they were made responsible to earn their own money and pay their own tithes, etc.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...dsonly=yes&version1=50&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

 

[Lighthouse]

Too many sites blocked here at work for the search I want to do. I'll try when I get home.

Okay.

Search "infant swim"


or "waterbirth"

:doh:

In a water birth the baby is going from amniotic fluid to water, and then being taken from the water so it can take its first breath. After that infants do not know how to hold their breath until they are old enough to be taught to do so.

If you hold an infant underwater long enough to baptize them they will swallow water and begin to drown.

 

[zippy2006]

Go back to the time of ancient Rome and see how many people had access to artificial baths.

Thank you for proving my point.

Sure

Then show me.

Show you what? That "entire household" doesn't mean "everyone 20 and up!"?

According to your claim, anyone under the age of 20 would then not be considered part of the household. That's rather absurd at face value. Do you have any source substantiating your claim?

It was at twenty when they were made responsible to earn their own money and pay their own tithes, etc.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...dsonly=yes&version1=50&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

I didn't ask about the age at which they could make such decisions, I asked for something to show that a 19 year old is not considered part of the household.

 

[some other dude]

If you hold an infant underwater long enough to baptize them they will swallow water and begin to drown.

Not sure how they baptize folks in your neck of the woods, but I'll bow out by stating that you obviously have no experience bathing and swimming with infants. I do. Holding your breath is instinctual.