Discussion over infant baptism v other forms of baptism

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 92
Topic's author
#1
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
In a new book recently published about the benefits of infant baptism, the author commenced with an interesting perspective.

He didn't start with proving infant baptism by biblical evidence, but rather he commenced by refuting the arguments commonly used against infant baptism. It is too bad that Melcharaz is not here to discuss this. But I am sure there are some other resident Christians who might be able to extend his arguments. 

The author raised the common arguments against and then refuted each one. 

1. The silence of infant baptism in the NT.  He argued argument from silence is weak since silence also suggests that females should not have communion. 
2. The argument that baptism requires faith which equates to capacity which infants can't have. He argued this argument proved too much making it invalid as it also suggested that anyone without capacity is unable to be baptised including adults with extreme autism.
3. The argument of order in the NT. faith always proceeds Baptism.  He argued this is actually not true with the authority for baptism derived from Matthew 28 which orders baptism first followed by teaching and discipling.
4. The argument that since infants can't be Christians, baptising pollutes the church. He argued that often adults also leave the faith so therefore they too are polluting the church.
5. The argument that it is a popish hangover. He argues that not everything about the Catholic Church was wrong.  

Are there other arguments that are not mentioned? Do any of the Christians here have any comments about these arguments against infant baptism

I note that this is an intriguing method of promoting infant baptism. So far in his argument he has not once argued for infant baptism. Only that the arguments against it don't hold as much water as has been argued. In a sense he is destroying strongholds - and once they are destroyed, he will be in a place to rebuild and make his case. 

Obviously for non-christians - this discussion is almost irrelevant and yet within some Christian circles - it clearly is a huge issue. 


#2
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I agree with this argument.

Baby's should not be baptised, because then what is the point?
The whole point of you getting baptized is you are taking a step of faith and showing others that you are a son or daughter of God. 

#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

I find it incredible that a person that claims to be both a Pastor and a Chaplain (not to mention a Preterist) to his countries armed forces and  with a congregation to over 300 worshipers as  the Reverend Tradesecret does  hasn't in his op attempted  explain what baptism is exactly? The reasons for baptism? How baptism actually works?  Its origins? Where does one get the authority to preform this ritual?

No one can tell us where John the "baptist" got his authority from?  Did Jesus ever actually baptise anyone himself?

As for "baptism at birth", it nothing short of child abuse. 





#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,547
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I assume the optimal age for baptism is age 7 or 8.

I think its important that a person remembers his baptism.
#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
I assume the optimal age for baptism is age 7 or 8.

As I said. Child abuse.
#6
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Eh, I'm not a Christian, but still find discussion interesting.

1, Silence can mean guideline I suppose,
People being proactive 'can be good.

2, If someone 'is mentally disabled to the point they don't understand where they are, what they're doing, agreeing to,
Well, they can't really 'have faith, I'd think.
Suppose there's some evil person all their life, they get dementia, then get tricked into getting baptized, without understanding the situation or implications,
I don't think that baptism did much.

3, It sounds there'd still need be a 'willingness and understanding of what one is willing towards.

4, False faith and action 'does sound polluting to me,
Like a politician who doesn't follow their faith,
'Might help the church in some ways, harms it in others.

5, Catholics have some good points, I'm sure.
. . .

My opinion is a parent can give their child their blessing,
Child may 'say they refuse it,
But eh, given is given,
If I say bless you to someone who sneezed, they might wig out and say they're an anti-theist,
But I might still wish them well, and already did in that hypothetical.

Still, baptism sounds more 'action of faith,
Display and promise,
Than anything magic.

Non-baptized child, doesn't go to Hell (If it were to exist)
To my thinking.

To my thinking baptism is more gesture on parents part,
Action bespeaking their love and intention to raise their child in faith, they believe correct and right.

One year old baby doesn't understand birthday,
But is gesture by family at times.

#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
I you want a good example of why children shouldn't be baptised watch this.



"Loyalists" i.e. Protestants attack Catholic children as young as five!


A school run like no other.

"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the cause which began this form of protest, it was lost in the terrified faces of the girls forced to suffer a school run like no other".
.
Woman one: "There must be a reason why we're doing this. There must be. We've had enough fear and we can't take it no more. We don't care."
Woman two: "We don't care; we're like the Jews now, I think."
Woman one: "I mean I wouldn't let my son or my daughter come home from a disco or anything from that Crumlin Road to get in here and it's the only way they can come at night."
Me: "This morning, whatever the wrongs and rights here, a bomb went off close to the children going to school. How did that make you feel?"
Woman one: "I'm past feeling. You can't understand that. I am past feeling. I'm not going to run my ones down for throwing that bomb."
Me: "But you're not a terrorist."
Woman one: "I'm not. No, I'm not a terrorist. No, I'm a mother. I'm a mother of five children."
Me: "Who's to blame for this?"
Woman one: "Themmuns down there."
Me: "How would you have felt this morning if a child had been killed?"
Woman one: "I'd have felt terrible. I'm a mother of five. Yes, it would be like me losing one of my own. I could feel for that mother."
Me: "So you're not past caring."


The very first quote by "woman one", is easily answered.  FKN BAPTISM!

These were terrified children wondering why they were hated and abused .  They more than likely didn't understand that it was because their parents has signed them up to a life long membership of their own version of god and religion.

Yet the OP, The Reverend Tradesecret suggests that   " the arguments against it don't hold as much water".
#8
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Stephen
People have different values,
Your solution, sounds to me, is to allow 'others to tell you how to live your life.

Doesn't matter if one is surrounded by Rabid Theists or Rabid Anti-Theists,
In either case your solution is that the individual and families personal beliefs don't matter.
Topic's author
#9
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I agree with this argument.
I am pleased you have an opinion. 

Baby's should not be baptised, because then what is the point?
The whole point of you getting baptized is you are taking a step of faith and showing others that you are a son or daughter of God. 
Could you explain why babies, (male) were circumcised in the OT?   Was there a point to it? Was there an element of faith involved? Was there a notion of identifying with the people of Israel? 

I am referring to circumcision because some Christians - the Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Reformers, Lutherans, and others suggest that there is a link between the two, but also because there is a commandment of God in the OT, the weaker shadow of the NT, where it was applied specifically to infants, (male) at an age whereby they could not possibly have faith. 
Topic's author
#10
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
I assume the optimal age for baptism is age 7 or 8.

I think its important that a person remembers his baptism.
Interesting opinion.  

Why? Why is it important you remember your own specific baptism, as opposed to the promises of God? Surely God's work in your life is the important thing, not your own moment of fame? 
Topic's author
#11
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Lemming
Eh, I'm not a Christian, but still find discussion interesting.
Thanks for engaging without the need to be vile or argumentative or insulting. 

1, Silence can mean guideline I suppose,
People being proactive 'can be good.
The argument against infant baptism is silence. Yet Baptists don't apply this argument from silence consistently. If they did, then they would also stop females from having communion.  They don't.  Why? Baptists say we can infer females have communion in the NT. And moreover, there is NO commandment against it.  I agree with these reasons why they give females communion.  Yet, they should apply this to infants. And they don't. 

2, If someone 'is mentally disabled to the point they don't understand where they are, what they're doing, agreeing to,
Well, they can't really 'have faith, I'd think.

Suppose there's some evil person all their life, they get dementia, then get tricked into getting baptized, without understanding the situation or implications,
I don't think that baptism did much.
Every week in church we see families who bring their disabled children with them.  These children don't communicate in the same way as other children do, but you can certainly see they enjoy being at church. They wouldn't be able to stand up the front and articulate their faith, but then again, there are lots of adults who have been Christians for years who would struggle as well.  I personally don't think that baptism is an agreement thing. So much as a promising thing, by parents and by congregational members. 

Baptism doesn't make a person a Christian so there is no consent to being one. Children who grow up in any home, whether it be Christian or Athiest, are expected to live according to the rules of the home, even if they are opposed to them.  

Baptism identifies someone with a group. Just like our name identifies us with our family. It is not a fix it. 


3, It sounds there'd still need be a 'willingness and understanding of what one is willing towards.
The third argument is about "order". Baptists tend to say that there is a divine order which cannot be broken. 

4, False faith and action 'does sound polluting to me,
Like a politician who doesn't follow their faith,
'Might help the church in some ways, harms it in others.
Church doctrine recognises there is an invisible church that is perfect and contains every true believer from day dot to the future.  But it also recognises that there is a visible church on the planet today which contains both true and false Christians.   Churches all over the world, know that from week to week, there are non-Christians in their congregations. Yet there is also such a breadth of what that means - that it is difficult to call it out. Hence why many churches have membership classes and rules that people need to comply with. There are sorting processes. The question however in relation to kids is - are they in or out before they reach an age of understanding?   Many say yes they are in. Others say- no.  But Baptists try to have it both ways.  They say - faith is what gets them into the church, but if they die before they are old enough, then Jesus lets them into heaven even without faith.  Those who agree with infant baptism allow them into the visible church, but let Jesus decide for himself who goes to heaven. 



5, Catholics have some good points, I'm sure.
I agree. some. 

My opinion is a parent can give their child their blessing,
Child may 'say they refuse it,
But eh, given is given,
If I say bless you to someone who sneezed, they might wig out and say they're an anti-theist,
But I might still wish them well, and already did in that hypothetical.
Blessing by a parent is one thing. Baptism however is something that belongs to the church, not to the parent. 


Still, baptism sounds more 'action of faith,
Display and promise,
Than anything magic.
There is nothing magic in baptism. It is simply a badge of identity with the local church and with Christ.  Faith for it does not need to come from the individual but from the church. 

Non-baptized child, doesn't go to Hell (If it were to exist)
To my thinking.
Honestly, I don't have an answer to that thought.  It is one of the difficult ones. Our denomination clearly provides that all such children fall within the pale of God's grace and mercy.  I'm happy to leave it in His hands.  Nevertheless, I do think baptism, like circumcision in the OT, was a command. And in the OT, the command if broken had severe consequences.  

To my thinking baptism is more gesture on parents part,
Action bespeaking their love and intention to raise their child in faith, they believe correct and right.
Ok.  For my part, I think baptism is a sacrament of the church, not the family.   Families go to church, but it is the church that makes the rules. Not the parents. 


One year old baby doesn't understand birthday,
But is gesture by family at times.

It would be rare for a family not to give their child a first birthday party.  Even though they don't understand. But it is more than the child's views that are considered. It is a declaration to others that this is our child and he belongs with us.  and the child may look back on the photos of that occasion and not recall it. But they will surely cherish it. And be glad it happened. 

#12
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Not a complaint or major point,
Just a minor question I had after reading.

I can imagine families being isolated without there being a priest/preacher around,
Yet having a kid, then baptizing the kid themselves,

There wouldn't be a church or community around, just the family,
So when you say 'The Church, do you mean it as an organization or as a faith at large?
#13
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,547
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Why is it important you remember your own specific baptism, as opposed to the promises of God?
Surely God's work in your life is the important thing, not your own moment of fame?
One does not exclude the other. Remembering your baptism creates more joy towards God, as it makes individuals think about God more. You cannot think of baptism without remembering God.
Topic's author
#14
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Lemming
Why in the world would a family want to baptise a child if there were no church around? Baptism isn't making a person a Christian, it's identifying with the church and Christ.  Perhaps one reason is that they want to start their own church.  

And why would kids want to baptise kids? Where would they get the idea? 

In my understanding, the visible church is the local church of Christians and their children gathered together as one body, who worship God publicly on a Sunday and then worship God privately throughout the week.  

It is an organisation. It is more than a building it is also more than the people.   

Also - I suppose there are exceptions to the rule. But really doesn't make the rule invalid. Moreso it proves the rule. 


Good questions and thanks. 
#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,547
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
@Steven

As I said. Child abuse.
Do you even know what is baptism?
Topic's author
#16
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Why is it important you remember your own specific baptism, as opposed to the promises of God? 
Surely God's work in your life is the important thing, not your own moment of fame?
One does not exclude the other. Remembering your baptism creates more joy towards God, as it makes individuals think about God more. You cannot think of baptism without remembering God.
Remembering your own baptism can bless you. There is no question about it. Yet not remembering my baptism doesn't stop me from being blessed when I see my children baptised.  

And when I see my children have their children baptised, I am blessed as I see the continuing promises of God honoured. 

I am blessed whenever I see the sacrament undertaken. It is the grace of God being extended to his people.  

The question is whether we see baptism as an individualist Western idea or as a covenant - family orientated idea of the Middle East. 

The bible contained household baptisms. Why would it mention this unless it contained infants? 
#17
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, even if there was no church or community around at the moment,
I just thought some people might still think baptism important,
Whether because they thought it an important ritual of tradition, or the individual to be baptized belief made apparent through action.

I meant the 'parent, baptize their own kid.


#18
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,547
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Tradesecret
I think baptism is good for infants. But in my view, its even better if a person remembers his own baptism. The latter has all the benefits of the former, and more.

Its not like you lose anything by waiting until child is 7, and then when the child has the understanding about God, child will remember the baptism as something special.
Topic's author
#19
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Lemming
Well, even if there was no church or community around at the moment,
I just thought some people might still think baptism important,
Whether because they thought it an important ritual of tradition, or the individual to be baptized belief made apparent through action.

I meant the 'parent, baptize their own kid.
Again good questions. 

Baptism is important. That is true in my view. But does it belong to the church or to the family? And what is its purpose?  

In the book of Acts, there is an Ethiopian man who comes to faith through the reading of the Scriptures. Phillip, who was effectively a church leader, baptised him. This was in the middle of nowhere.  He was away from towns and communities and desired to be baptised straightway.  There wasn't the witness of other people. 

So, I suppose it can happen that people are separated. Yet in this case, Phillip was a deacon in the church. I can't think of any situation in the NT where someone was baptised by someone who wasn't a leader in the church.  

I don't think parents have the authority to baptise their children. If someone came to our church and desired to be a member and told me they had been baptised by their dad in the local river, our church would not consider that baptism.   We would baptise that person before they could become a member. Of course, if they had been baptised as part of another congregation, whether it was our denomination or another then their baptism would be accepted. (So far as it was a legitimate church)

As I said above, baptism is one of those things which belong to the church. It is what distinguishes the church from the State, from the Family, and from other organisations. It is not just a tradition or a Christian rite. It was given to the Church. and is one of its keys. 




#20
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,338
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Way I usually hear it,
Baptism always sounded an act that signifies an individuals faith and bond with God,
Even if a baby I suppose, though in such a case it'd be the guardians stating it,
Whether because the guardians believed it, or they thought the child ought have such,

Though I 'do only ever recall individuals being baptized 'by other individuals, no self baptisms that I can ever recall,
Even Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
#21
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Could you explain why babies, (male) were circumcised in the OT?   Was there a point to it? Was there an element of faith involved? Was there a notion of identifying with the people of Israel? 
I think circumcision was more of a faith move for the parents of the child, as a representation of them giving their child into the hands of God, not as a sacrificial representation, but a faithful one.

I am referring to circumcision because some Christians - the Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Reformers, Lutherans, and others suggest that there is a link between the two, but also because there is a commandment of God in the OT, the weaker shadow of the NT, where it was applied specifically to infants, (male) at an age whereby they could not possibly have faith. 
As a Christian, I believe that there is no physical type of ritual that we must do. To be a Christian means to love and believe in God, and to strive to have a better relationship with him. 
God has already done his part, now we must do ours to have a better relationship with him.

Nothing that we physically do determines our faith. Do you have to be circumcised in order to be a Christian? No, but it does strengthen the relationship between your parents and God.

Do you have to be baptized in order to be a Christain? No, but it does strengthen the relationship between you and God. 

Galatians 2:20:  "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

Live by faith, not by sight. 
Topic's author
#22
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Could you explain why babies, (male) were circumcised in the OT?   Was there a point to it? Was there an element of faith involved? Was there a notion of identifying with the people of Israel? 
I think circumcision was more of a faith move for the parents of the child, as a representation of them giving their child into the hands of God, not as a sacrificial representation, but a faithful one.
It was a commandment of God, wasn't it? Any faith had to do with the promises of God by way of covenant. 

I am referring to circumcision because some Christians - the Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Reformers, Lutherans, and others suggest that there is a link between the two, but also because there is a commandment of God in the OT, the weaker shadow of the NT, where it was applied specifically to infants, (male) at an age whereby they could not possibly have faith. 
As a Christian, I believe that there is no physical type of ritual that we must do. To be a Christian means to love and believe in God, and to strive to have a better relationship with him. 
God has already done his part, now we must do ours to have a better relationship with him.
I agree that there is no physical type of ritual we MUST do to become a Christian. Yet a command is a command, isn't it? A command is a must. And Jesus commanded his disciples to baptise and teach.  Surely you believe that?  A Christian is one who has been baptised by the Spirit of God. One who has been "born again". 

Nothing that we physically do determines our faith. Do you have to be circumcised in order to be a Christian? No, but it does strengthen the relationship between your parents and God.
Circumcision is OT. Baptism is NT. I am not sure what you mean by "determines our faith". 


Do you have to be baptized in order to be a Christain? No, but it does strengthen the relationship between you and God. 

Galatians 2:20:  "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

Live by faith, not by sight. 

Does the bible say live by faith and not by sight?  We need to be baptised by the Spirit of God to be Christian. No Baptism, no salvation. Baptism in water does not save. Yet it symbolised what God has promised. In other words, Baptism in water is a representation of the reality of true baptism. 
Topic's author
#23
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Lemming
Way I usually hear it,
Baptism always sounded an act that signifies an individuals faith and bond with God, 
Ok.  But in many places, baptism is about a promise, not attainment.  In Baptist churches, baptism is typically seen as a sign of having made it. In churches that practice infant baptism, it is a sign of God's promises to them if they persevere.  

Even if a baby I suppose, though in such a case it'd be the guardians stating it,
Whether because the guardians believed it, or they thought the child ought have such,

There are a variety of views within the church even for infant baptism.  Some churches do believe that baptism makes that child a christian. nevertheless, not all do. Faith is a crazy thing to talk about.  I'd say that John the Baptist had faith in his mother's womb and leapt when his mother drew close to Jesus in Mary's womb. 


Though I 'do only ever recall individuals being baptized 'by other individuals, no self baptisms that I can ever recall,
Even Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
True. the NT does not record any self-baptisms.   John baptised Jesus.  John was presumably baptised by the Levites.  John the Baptist did not practice Christian baptism.  He practised a Jewish form of baptism, ritual cleansing, and anointing.  Christian Baptism did not take place until Pentecost.  Christ did not receive the authority to baptise with the Spirit until he rose from the dead.   Matthew 28 provides that this authority was given at that point.  It is true that Jesus' disciples were baptising prior to Jesus' death and resurrection. Yet those baptisms were more in line with the Jewish baptisms. It was not Christian baptism until Pentecost. 


#24
Skipper_Sr
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 290
1
2
7
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Skipper_Sr
1
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Why did Melcharaz leave?
#25
Skipper_Sr
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 290
1
2
7
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Skipper_Sr
1
2
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Baby's should not be baptised, because then what is the point?
The whole point of you getting baptized is you are taking a step of faith and showing others that you are a son or daughter of God. 
Baptism is not a show or meant to be a public-display. Baptism is meant to save us, and all are to be Baptized 

Topic's author
#26
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Skipper_Sr
He asked to leave. 
Topic's author
#27
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Baptism is not a show or meant to be a public-display. Baptism is meant to save us, and all are to be Baptized 
Ok. 

I don't agree that baptism is meant to save us. Nor do I think all should be baptised. 
#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
Your solution, sounds to me, is to allow 'others to tell you how to live your life.

Quite the opposite. I have said, baptism of children too young to know what is going on is  - child abuse.


The children in those reports I posted above-some as young as five were terrified wondering why they were hated and abused by fkn adults!!.  They more than likely didn't understand that it was because their parents has signed them up to a life long membership of their own version of god and religion.


"Loyalists" i.e. Protestants attack Catholic children as young as five!


A school run like no other.


Yet the OP, The Reverend Tradesecret suggests that   " the arguments against it don't hold as much water".

If this ritual has to happen at all it should be left up to the child to pick her/her own side or not at all when s/he becomes adult .
#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
As I said. Child abuse.
Do you even know what is baptism?

Yes. Child abuse.

#30
Skipper_Sr
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 290
1
2
7
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Skipper_Sr
1
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't agree that baptism is meant to save us
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you," - 1 Peter 3:21a

Nor do I think all should be baptised. 
Why not?