[MyKidsDad73]

"I don't see the problem. No matter what the status of the parents, the child is innocent. The only answer is the the child should be baptized."

From the article:
"The church had theological convictions about sex and marriage, as well as about how, in their theological tradition, infant baptism was offered based on the faith and obedience of parents. The pastor, however, chose to go through with the baptism, in order to 'show love to the child and her parents.'"

In full disclosure, I do not believe in infant baptism but rather believer's baptism. You simply can't point to a scenario in The Bible in which an infant was baptized.

With that said, and in accordance with this specific belief, I would argue that the only answer is to decline infant baptism based on the parents' disobedience.

[Albion Wilde]

You simply can't point to a scenario in The Bible in which an infant was baptized.

Acts 16:32 Then Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. 33At that hour of the night, the jailer took them and washed their wounds. And without delay, he and all his household were baptized.

Acts 16:15 And when she [Lydia] and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.”

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.

I am neither defending nor rejecting infant baptism; I am merely posting some of the scriptures cited by those who uphold it.

[boatbums]

I agree.

Welcome to Free Republic!