Infant baptism is based on the Abrahamic covenant. I has Scriptural support.

You can also refer to:
http://dialogos-studies.com/Dialogos/baptism/in...
for more information.

I do believe baptism is a big deal. I also believe baptism should be the choice of whomever is getting baptized. If I'm not mistaken, it's a public proclamation of one's faith. Can babies have faith in what they don't comprehend due to their cognitive immaturity?

So interesting to run this through a philosophical metrix. Moderns can't handle infant baptism because it's not good enough NOT to make a well reasoned, calculated, researched, INDIVIDUAL decision. Post-moderns can't handle adult baptism because they've lost modernity's confidence in human ability to make individualized decisions well; yet, they can't handle infant baptism cuz some outside authority which might not be trustworthy is putting stuff ontop of them; yet post-moderns also grieve the isolation and fragmentation which results from their distrust of authority.

Perhaps its interesting to observe what KIND of activity we assume baptism to be. Is it decision-making, faith-assenting? What does the conversation sound like if we consider the act of baptism to be "story-telling."

For example, after my son and I finish nightly bedtime Bible reading and prayers, I tell him I love him, that Jesus loves him, then I ask him, "who loves you? He goes thru the list of people, including Jesus, and I ask him WHO he is, he says, "I'm baptized."

The baptismal liturgy is a storytelling of God's redeeming acts in history, which culminate in the present baptism. Then the parents', sponsors', congregation's job is to keep telling that growing child the story of God,

Does it work to imagine baptism as the village gathered round the nightly campfire: the elders are telling stories while the little ones watch their parents listen, and listen themselves with awe, so that day in and day out the child, adult, whatever, has something for faith on which to finally hang.

This is interesting to me. As part of an interfaith marriage, I'm sure we will be wrestling with this concept soon. I was raised Catholic with infant baptism and confirmation, and my husband Seventh Day Adventist with a "presentation" as a child and a baptism at the age of reason. I think baptizing children is a promise that they will be raised in the faith, but more than that, it's the parents actively taking responsibility for their soul while they are a child. Their parent takes the vows of faith for them because they are unable. It is also for the cleansing of original sin. Original sin (the sin of Adam and Eve) is on each person when they are born. The Catholics remove this original sin with baptism and all subsequent sins with confession/reconciliation to allow Catholics to be in a state of relative grace while receiving the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, infant baptism is important for a child to be able to receive the sacrament of communion. I also think the Catholic ritual is especially beautiful when compared to the Bible because John the Baptist told everyone to look for the one after him who would baptize with fire. Jesus came, and was baptized with water, but then during Pentecost the disciples were baptized with the fire of the Holy Spirit that allowed them to go out and preach the Gospel and live as true followers of Christ. Thus, Catholic youth experience confirmation at the age of reason. This is when they take the vows of faith for themselves and receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit to go out into the world and live as followers of Christ.

By contrast, in my husband's church, babies are presented to God as Jesus was when he was born, and baptized as adults. I can understand the Biblical reasoning for baptizing after the age of reason. This allows a person to chose to be baptized and accept Christ, not to accept him by the will of their parents. To me there are direct parallels here with Catholic Baptism. I think the reason I prefer the Catholic version is the respect to scriptures shown by the sacraments of communion and confirmation. I believe that we were to expect to be baptized in fire, as John the Baptist told us to look forward to, and that's what confirmation is. Thus, infants are baptized for important reasons and in the tradition of Jesus being baptized in the river Jordan, whereas adults are confirmed and baptized with the fire of the holy spirit as the original followers of Jesus were in the Upper Room.

I'm tolerant of both beliefs, though I am not sure what we will do when we have our children at this point. Now that's a tough situation...

I was baptized as an infant when I was 11 years old.

after years of being a staunch supporter of adult baptism, i am now in a denomination where infant baptism is the norm. although i still see value in both traditions, i now have a preference for infant baptism. i believe that infant baptism puts the church at risk in a healthy and christ like way.

when jesus came to live as a human being, he invested in humanity to the point of being integrated with humanity. although you can talk all you want about jesus being separate, the truth is that to the observer, he was part and parcel indistinguishable. he was born, lived and died as a human person. this extravagant investment and identification was made in order to effectively demonstrate God's love toward all of humankind. as john 1 tells us, jesus' gift was accepted by some, but rejected by others. but the gift was made first. jesus made himself available to rejection from those he had already embraced in love.

infant baptism not only practices "for God so loved the world," but puts the church at risk in a christ-like way. when we welcome a member into the church as an infant, the church makes an extravagant investment and identification, claiming the child as one of its own. the gift of love is made first. as that child grows in the church and understanding, the church is invested in and identified with that development. if the child at some point rejects the church and christ (God forbid!), the church suffers real and healthy rejection. the church is the shepherd looking for the one sheep who had wandered from the flock. the church suffers the hurt of rejection and i think this is healthy and christ-like.

i think it's unhealthy for the church to be made only of self-selecting (mentally assenting) members. in this case rejection is a lack of addition instead of a significant subtraction. just like we don't have the option of choosing our birth families, but have to learn to live with and appreciate them over time, i believe it is healthy for the church to open its arms to welcome infants in baptism. by doing so, we live out jesus' own gifting of his love and join in jesus' own risk in regards to rejection and woundedness.

Just so everyone knows ... Bryne shall not be trifled with. She is a theological ninja. What she writes, in my opinion, is wisdom.

justin, having trouble with comments today... the above post is mine... fyi...

Acts 16: 25-34. I believe this is why infants can be baptized without contradictions biblically. If the parents believe in God and want the same for their children, there is no better way to express this than by having them baptized as a child.

I also do not believe that "re-do" baptisms are necessary because there is no reference in the bible that the children in those families were re-baptized once they decided to continue to follow God, which is what they grew up knowing.

I am going to have to disagree with your interpretation of this passage of scripture. The passage does not specify the ages of those who are part of the "household." It does say however that the gospel was offered to the jailer and his household. It says the gospel was preached to him and the household. And most importantly, it then it says the gospel was received and believed by the jailer and his household.

An infant cannot receive and believe in something they cannot understand. In addition, you cannot pass on beliefs to an infant.