MennoNet.com

This is a poll for Anabaptists only please. The only criteria is that you identify as Anabaptist in some or any way.

Many who believe in infant baptism practice confirmation. This, like believer baptism, is making a public commitment to the Christian faith. While I believe infant baptism is a misunderstanding of baptism, confirmation would seem to be fairly equivalent spiritually.

Many who believe in believer's baptism practice infant dedication. This is similar to what infant baptism really is, and many find it important.

So, while I believe we Anabaptists are right, and therefore infant baptism is wrong, I won't reject those who understand it differently. I long, with Jesus, that we all be one in the spirit.

I am not certain if it is an abomination or not, but I DO understand it to be un-Biblical (something without any Scriptural support). The first (and only) time I saw an infant baptized (it was not in a Catholic or Orthodox church) I was frankly surprised at how 'repulsed' I was. But that in itself has no reflection on its correctness or uncorrectness. That is determined by what God has said about it, in the Scripture, or record of his will and true teaching.

As for infant dedications, that is something that is called a 'cultural substitute' in anthropology and ethnological studies of culture change. In other words, it was introduced into post-Catholic settings to sort of calm the worries of parents who were not really convinced that it was OK to just completely drop infant baptism. ("Parent dedication" is fine, but is still often related to this parental unease.)

Couple infant baptism with an of-age confirmation and you have something I would consider to be theoretically similar to the view of some Amish, who say that what is important is "making a right confession". So a person can be baptized and make a doctrinally faultless statement or confession, and it still go no deeper than the mouth - nothing changed in the heart level, no personal faith or relationship with God. These are the people who still the concerns of the heart with a false assurance that depends on the bishop to 'take care of the issue of salvation for me'. I will maintain that these people are not 'anabaptists' in that their right confession is not based on faith. It is an empty "doing and saying", a work of the flesh.

Some of the biblical support for infant baptism comes from the conviction that baptism is new covenant version of circumcision. I think this is compelling if your concept of the people of God is cultural or national, then children enter the group at birth. But if you conceptualize the people of God as a family of faith one enters through repentance and confession that parallel evaporates.

barnhart wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 1:53 pm Some of the biblical support for infant baptism comes from the conviction that baptism is new covenant version of circumcision. I think this is compelling if your concept of the people of God is cultural or national, then children enter the group at birth.

Or a patriarchal/familial concept? I.e. the father as the head of the household determines the family's faith; children share the faith of their parents.

MattY wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 2:43 pm

barnhart wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 1:53 pm Some of the biblical support for infant baptism comes from the conviction that baptism is new covenant version of circumcision. I think this is compelling if your concept of the people of God is cultural or national, then children enter the group at birth.

Or a patriarchal/familial concept? I.e. the father as the head of the household determines the family's faith; children share the faith of their parents.

That's another angle.

barnhart wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 3:17 pm

MattY wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 2:43 pm

barnhart wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 1:53 pm Some of the biblical support for infant baptism comes from the conviction that baptism is new covenant version of circumcision. I think this is compelling if your concept of the people of God is cultural or national, then children enter the group at birth.

Or a patriarchal/familial concept? I.e. the father as the head of the household determines the family's faith; children share the faith of their parents.

That's another angle.

Cuius paterno, eius religio

I don't believe in adult baptism. I believe in believer's baptism.

I think forced infant baptism or pressuring parents to baptize their infants to be an abomination.

I would encourage anyone under the age of 10 to be rebaptized.

I would not encourage anyone to be baptized before they are 15.

Ernie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:29 pm I don't believe in adult baptism. I believe in believer's baptism.

I think forced infant baptism or pressuring parents to baptize their infants to be an abomination.

I would encourage anyone under the age of 10 to be rebaptized.

I would not encourage anyone to be baptized before they are 15.

I like the term believer's baptism as well but I wouldn't rebaptize anyone as long as they remember asking for it in faith.

barnhart wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:46 pm

Ernie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:29 pm I don't believe in adult baptism. I believe in believer's baptism.

I think forced infant baptism or pressuring parents to baptize their infants to be an abomination.

I would encourage anyone under the age of 10 to be rebaptized.

I would not encourage anyone to be baptized before they are 15.

I like the term believer's baptism as well but I wouldn't rebaptize anyone as long as they remember asking for it in faith.

So age three would be ok?

And "in faith" does that mean in sincerity and willingness to surrender all to Christ as much as they knew at the time?