Somewhere between the "believer's baptism" of the early church and the "baptize the child as rapidly as possible" Roman Catholic doctrine, something got skewed in our understanding.

But that's just my opinion. I'm not even sure that it's the main issue in this discussion. Shouldn't the key question here be whether or not a couple of committed Christians can continue in their relationship believing differently on this subject. (I know lots of couples who disagree on all kinds of doctrinal matters.)

For a dating couple, is baptism a deal-breaker or can they get past personal differences?

Now that I think of it, the only Credos in this blog are Phil and Blo. Being nought but an ethereal zephyr, Blo probably won't respond. So I'm counting on ya, Phil.

Jared is "Paedo-curious", I think. I remember when he was "Calvin-curious" and "Amil-curious" too; it generally just means it's only a matter of time. And Bird gave me the Children of the Promise book a couple of Moots ago, so I'll find no help there.

Also - WF, in re-reading your comment I think I also was less than clear in the word "argument". I didn't mean it as in a hotly-contested debate, but rather in the drier "this is the argument I would use to support my position" type of usage. And the entire quoted section in my post represents my argument, and, as I suspected, it's so weak as to be unrecognizable :-)

I can only tell you what I did in this situation.
I married a Catholic man. He wasn’t attending a church I was going to a C of C and kept going. After my son was born his parents wanted my child sprinkled. We both agreed and flew to PA. I didn’t participate in the ceremony. The priest was very nice about me not being a part of it. We did the same for my daughter. We did it out of respect for his parents. When my minister uncle was asked about it he responded with “What’s it gonna hurt?”

I want my children to get all the way in the water, when they are ready.
I will say that going to church together won’t hold a relationship together but it will help. Keeping God in the relationship will hold them together.

It's gonna be a few more days before I can comment adequately. Sorry. :(

But I will say that in THIS situation, I think the last part of your email to this person is right on. More important than them agreeing on every little thing, is that they agree on the majors, and that they attend church together, and raise the children together.

They need to work that out now. Would the pedo be comfortable attending and raising the kids in a credo church? What about vice versa.

That's a premarital counseling issue with a pastor in my opinion.

As far as argument for credo...from me, that'll have to wait. :)

I'm a credo, but I have sympathies for the paedo position. (If you have a copy of Calvin's "Institutes," he gives the common defense of paedo in there, but there are plenty of modern paedo apologetic resources.)

In addition, baptism is described as a process of immersion, rather than sprinkling.

Actually, unless you're just going on the literal meaning of the original word for baptism, it is never described at all in the New Testament. People go to rivers for it alot in the NT, but it never says that they actually get dunked. The earliest picture we have of a Christian baptism shows the convert being neither dunked nor sprinkled, but having water poured over his head out of a some kind of jar.

From my point of view, this is not so much something that should be argued or debated about as it is something that should be prayerfully considered together as a couple.

These kids should just break up. These things never get resolved. Just kidding. :) Sort of. :(

For the record, I lean toward credo, and that's the way I would do my kids. But I was baptized as an infant, and since it seems like "it took", I really bristle at my Baptist friends who tell me I need to get baptized for real.

For the most part, I agree with this by Bill: "I do think it's something to be worked out before marriage (and definitely before kids)."

But views change, too. Say you had it "worked out" before marriage but by the time you have your first child 7 years later, one of you has become convinced otherwise? That was the case with my wife and me. So the second part of Bill's statement quoted above is really the key - at some point you'll have a kid and willl have to decide, and it's better to have thought it out before then rather than make a rushed decision fraught with the pressure of time creating or exacerbating already intense emotions.

I grew up credo and was baptized as a young teen, but now lean (and practiced w/ my 3 kids) paedo, but am open to either, really. One piece that I read made an interesting observation. The point it made was something along the lines of:

Most (all?) Christian traditions hold that entry into the life of the church consists of instruction in the faith, owning the faith for oneself, and baptism. Credo wants to see those take place in the order listed above. Paedo sees the ideal order as being baptism-instruction-owning (marked by confirmation in some churches, after which one can participate in communion).

To those who objected to our paedo practice as being something that would turn the "owning/personal decision" into a mere expected ritual for the kids to go through at confirmation time regardless of the true state of their heart, I observed that in the credo context I grew up in, the same was true. If a church kid made it well into middle school and hadn't yet made a public profession of faith and been dunked, the social and familial pressure to do so grew exponentially. In reality, the process for many in that context was just as much a matter of complying with the expected outward form, as it is in any paedo liturgical church where at around age 12 the previously-baptized kids all go through confirmation.

This post may sound like an argument for paedo, because that's where we came down in the end. But really it's more of an argument that "While it's true that you and your spouse will have to make a decision, I don't think it matters nearly as much as many Christians seem to think it does. So take it seriously and prayerfully, but don't get too worked up about it." I know and have known wonderful Christians on both "sides" of this issue.

But views change, too. Say you had it "worked out" before marriage but by the time you have your first child 7 years later, one of you has become convinced otherwise?

Boy howdy, I know what that's like.

My wife and I were "credo" when we got married and are now "paedo", so yeah you should work it out, but yeah things might change. As in all other things keep the lines of communication open.

Bob.........I mean simply that most who hold to believer baptism would say ...

OK, I see your point now. I guess my credo-baptist reasoning is a bit atypical. I lean toward it because

1) I see the weight of scripture pointing in that direction.
2) Though I completely understand Karl's point (#16), it seems best to me in most cases if baptism is (at least in part) an opportunity for a believer to make a public expression of their faith.

But on the other hand
1) I don't see a water-tight case against paedo-baptism in scripture and
2) Even though I see credo-baptism as the more "sure" path, I see plenty of good Christians out there who were baptised as infants, including myself. (Except that I'm not really what you would call a "good" Chirstian, but that's another story.) and
3) I admit it. After all these (too) many years, I still don't really know what the purpose of baptism is anyway. (I reject doctrines of baptismal regeneration.) I just know we're supposed to do it. So what the heck, is my attitude toward what any other well meaning Christian wants to do with their kids.

Enkurio, you actually highlight the reasons why I don't lean to the credo side. The whole notion of "one must be dunked to really be baptized" seems to run counter to the lack of rigid rules for Christian ritual and practice in the NT.

The other key Christian rite in the NT - Communion - has no such specifics in its explanation. Just come together and break some bread and drink some wine and remember me (well, ok, not that casual, but you get the point).


Anytime someone tells me the NT says "do it THIS way" (other than when Jesus tells us how to pray) it doesn't seem (IMO) to jive with the rest of the NT.

If you lean toward credo, aren't you disobeying a command?

Isn't the "focus" of the great commision "go and make disciples". Furthermore, doesn't it state after that phrase: "baptizing them...". Who is them? It would be disciples, correct? Since a disciple is a follower of Jesus wouldn't that lean more toward believer's baptism?

Enkurio: I think there are actually some Eastern Orthodox denominations that baptize infants by immersion (not very long, and very carefully--I mean, they've been doing that for centuries, so I think they have the technique down, heh).

Eastern Orthodox denominations that baptize infants by immersion

Yes, I just researched that. Reminds me of parents who teach their infants how to swim - they blow on their face, which causes the infant to hold their breath and then dunk them under the water. I can only imagine the same technique is used immersing an infant in a baptism ceremony.

I've only got 15 minutes of my lunch left and I have SO many things I could say on the subject. Prepare for some drive-by commenting, w/o links. :-P

I'm COC, ICOC specifically. I'm tempted to throw out a ton of disclaimers about not being associated with this or that COC/ICOC practice or dogmatically stated opinion. Suffice to say that I differ from much of what you'll find by Googling.

I do, however, strongly believe in baptism by believers for remission of sins. Why? The scriptures support it (Acts 2:42, Romans 6:1-10, 1 Peter 3) and the early church taught it(see the writings of the early church fathers adn the Nicene creed). Does that mean you have to do it in a certain order and in a certain way? I dunno, that's for God to say (I did not always hold that opinion). Baptizo does mean to immerse, and the anecdotal scriptural evidence supports immersions (meaning of the word and the statement that they "went down into the water" at some point), so I believe that's the way it was and should be done.

However, God never laid out in scripture a specific process or practice. I think the evidence is strong, but not all see it that way. He may very well honor sprinkling (I'm frankly confident that He does), maybe even infant sprinkling, dependent on the faith of the individual later in life.

I find baptism an amazing and powerful thing and that many Christians seem to miss the majesty in it. Romans 6 is my favorite passage in this regard. Stop and contemplate what Paul says takes place in baptism. We die and are buried with Jesus, and resurrected as he was. To me, the symbolism of a burial and resurrection aligns with dipped under the water and raised again out of it.

It gives me goose bumps to think about what happens during baptism.

To risk opening up another can of worms, my understanding of the origins of infant baptism is that it started to be widespread in the 400s when many infants were dying in the plagues. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration was still widely held but the doctrine of original sin, in that we are born damned, was gaining prominence. That meant that a baby that dies was doomed to hell because they hadn't grown up to be baptized. So, the church started baptizing infants.

It's a twisting,(in my view)of doctrines that lead to an erroneous conclusion. Regardless of your belief in original sin, baptism alone does not save. 1 Peter 3 says that. It's part of a process that originates in faith in Jesus. It simply takes our faith and connects us to Jesus' death and resurrection. So, baptizing an infant doesn't make sense to me because they have no faith to make it meaning full.

I'm out of time, I'll stop by later to see what kind of trouble I've stirred up. :-P

nhe,

My dad asked me that very question.
I told him that I believed that Jesus died to take away our sins and he will do just that. I told him that I thought he should but that he needed to read it and decide for himself. I don’t think that God will close the gates because you didn’t but I do think it should be done when called to do it. After heart surgery he took the plunge.

I’m thinking about doing it again. Some will criticize that idea but it’s between us and God.
I asked a Catholic priest to explain why a sprinkle. He told me that they believe it was best to immerse. I asked him why not do it then. He had no idea except tradition. Yep that was the guy who sprinkled my kids. I want them to go to the river when God tells them it’s time. That being said I think that my in-laws will be welcomed in heaven catholic and sprinkled.