Infant baptism

For our non-LDS Christian friends--

Can anyone tell me how, where or when infant baptism began? I'm just curious because it's not specific in the Bible and also Jesus was not baptized as an infant.

Also, forms of baptism other than immersion--what are the origins of these?

Thanks.

[Shell72]

Originally Posted by bren1975

For our non-LDS Christian friends--

Can anyone tell me how, where or when infant baptism began? I'm just curious because it's not specific in the Bible and also Jesus was not baptized as an infant.

Also, forms of baptism other than immersion--what are the origins of these?

Thanks.

Infant baptism is a catholic practice.

[thejason]

There's a reason Christ was not baptized as an infant. It's not of God.

[Vort]

Originally Posted by thejason

There's a reason Christ was not baptized as an infant. It's not of God.

The question was asked of non-Mormons.

I don't qualify as a non-Mormon, but I think the practice of infant baptism derives from the belief in Original Sin, that all mankind is guilty from conception of Adam's sin. (I believe that Catholic theology teaches that Mary is exempt from this sin, but no one else.)

If your belief is that every human soul born into the world is guilty of sin and will therefore be damned if not baptized, then you will almost certainly practice infant baptism.

[thejason]

It's a public board. I can respond if I choose.

[Vort]

Originally Posted by thejason

It's a public board. I can respond if I choose.

Did someone suggest otherwise? I did not tell you to shut up; I merely mentioned that your response was inappropriate, assuming you to be innocent of ill intent.

By the way, this is a "public" board in the sense that it's publicly visible, but not in the sense that it's publicly owned. Content and members can, and at times will, be censored.

[thejason]

You then mentioned that you don't qualify as a "non-mormon" either, which would mean your post is just as inappropriate as mine.

I'm aware of how this site is run. Thanks.

[Vort]

Originally Posted by thejason

You then mentioned that you don't qualify as a "non-mormon" either, which would mean your post is just as inappropriate as mine.

Not really, for two reasons:

1. By mentioning up front that I was not LDS, I did not attempt to fly under the radar and masquerade my opinion on the "Christian Beliefs Board", which is specifically set aside as a place to discuss non-LDS Christianity, as a non-LDS opinion.

2. My statements were not a value judgment on non-LDS Christian beliefs, but rather an attempt to explain non-LDS doctrine, and was offered because no other explanations had yet been offered.

[thejason]

I didn't attempt to fly under the radar. People who are familiar with me know I'm active LDS. There's no reason I'd try to hide that or disguise myself as something else.

I couldn't care less if you feel my posting here is inappropriate. I'll do it anyway.

[Islander]

There is no mention in early Christian documents of infant baptism. The Roman Church begins to toil with the idea around 230 AD (the Greek and Eastern churches opposed the practice).

Later, very liberal interpretations and extrapolations of the text give root to the tradition of infant baptism. Presenting the new born males to the priest on the eighth day had to do the the circumcision under the Torah but a child is not brought to the temple as a fully sanctioned and aware "adult" person but until age 12-13. At such time they are accountable under the law.

There is no evidence baptism was carried out on children under this age among early Jewish converts to Christianity and later Christians at large prior to the Carthage Council in 253 AD where it begins to gain acceptance in the Roman church.