Talk:Infant baptism/Archive 1

message: I see that Christening currently redirects to Infant baptism.
What about the ceremony with the champagne and the large ships ?
Is that a "Christening", or is there some other word for it ?
--DavidCary 02:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Christening]] 

message: I would like to know why GFrege's edits were reverted on 8/17/05?  He deserves at least an explanation for reverting all the work he did.  Liblamb 03:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  why revert? 

message: Any objections to removing the NPOV template? -- KHM03 19:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda: As I am new to Wikipedia it would help to have a few things cleared up. What is NPOV or POV? and why delete a template? I am on the Wikipedia tutorial & sandbox pages; but I will appreciate if you save me some reading and answer the questions for clarification for me. (thanks) Gladius1 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason for an NPOV flag is that an editor believes that only one viewpoint among several significant voices is represented or that the article does something between suggesting other views are wrong to outright attacking them. The editor hopes to get the attention of fellow editors and challenge them to correct the problem or to attract others in the wiki-world to come and help. It's kind of like a flare. --CTSWyneken 15:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal? 

message: The World Council of Churches' statement (Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry): http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/faith/bem3.html#IV  Might be helpful as this page is revised...I'm going to start watching it, and if time permits, I'll take a crack at some of the legwork if not already completed. Peace, User:Deleted_user_jj1 03:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For Reference's Sake

message: Dear Friends: I have edited the intro and ceremony sections for clarity, hoping that it will go a way towards removing the flag. I'm not committed to the wording, so please feel free to adjust. We can talk out any difficulties here. --CTSWyneken 10:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, CTSW, save a single typo I think all your edits have brought the article a long way. I presume you intend to do the same to the latter sections! I find that the sections you edited read a lot more encyclopedically, which gives it a much more workable structure. Glad you showed up! --BigBlueFish 21:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro and ceremony edits for clarity 

message: What do pedobaptist denominations do with adults who are born-again Christians? And perhaps more importantly what do they call it if the answer is that they baptise them? Presumably it isn't infant baptism, but is it believer's baptism or is that too exclusive to the anti-pedobaptist stance? BigBlueFish 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please Sign your comments! --CTSWyneken 14:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult baptism 

message: "Pedobaptists challenge credobaptists on this point: Why would a whole
household be baptized just because the head of the house had faith?
Shouldn’t they baptize each member of the family as they come to
individual faith?"
Yes, they should.
Cornelius:
Acts 10:46 - "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."
The Phillipian Jailor:
Acts 16:32 - "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house."
Crispus:
Acts 18:8 - "Crispus believed on the Lord with all his house."
Lydia:
Acts 16:40 - "When they had seen the brethren, they comforted them."
Stephanas:
1Cor 16:15 - "They have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints."
These are descriptions of mature believers.
Thank you very much for the challenge.
:: Please sign your posts. Please also remember this article is about what the proponents of infant baptism believe, not what you think of their arguments. If you have a believer's baptism scholar who has a counter argument, feel free to introduce it -- with a citation. --CTSWyneken 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Household Baptisms 

message: Does anyone see a purpose for retaining this flag? If not, I will remove it. Thanks! --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up flag 

message: :The practice is sometimes contrasted with believer's baptism... which is the Christian religious practice of baptizing only adults who declare faith in Jesus.
In the Anglican tradition when we baptise an adult we ask them to declare faith in the entire Trinity, not just Jesus. Does this part mean that it's common for people who only baptise adults only to ask them to declare faith in Jesus, or should the text be changed? The Wednesday Island 14:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  The statement should be revised to include the other Persons of the Trinity. MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaring faith in Jesus 

message: Is there a typical age at which infant baptism is performed?  Aka must a child be at least X weeks or months old to have it done?  Or does it vary so widely that it is not worthy of inclusion?
Aerinha 14:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Age is not an issue at all for those who practice infant baptism. Typically, however, babies are baptized between birth and a month old. --CTSWyneken(talk) 17:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical age of child? 

message: This is supposed to be an article on infant baptism, not a comparison between infant baptism and believer's baptism.  I understand the enthusiasm of my fellow proponent of believer's baptism to present their beliefs, but this in an encyclopedia-- not an apologetics forum.  It seems to me that someone ought to expunge the overwhelming majority of references to believer's baptism from this article and unless someone can provide me with serious reasons to reconsider I will begin to do just that in the next few days. Eugeneacurry 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Clean-Up Needed 

message: To keep this article from advocating one POV or another, we need to avoid language that makes conclusions which are disputed out to be facts. We also need to do some work to back up what we say from published scholarship. 
I have deleted the first sentence in this history section for two reasons: 
1. It implies that everyone agrees that the NT does not mention infant baptism when this is clearly not the case. (see WP:NPOV for why this is a problem).
2. It is not needed, since the paragraphs that follow clearly outline the two views on whether infant baptism was practiced in the first century. Since the NT era was in the first century, it is redundant.
May I suggest we spend some time on research and provide full citation of scholarship on the subject? --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-NPOV nature of these first two sentences is apparent, and I have removed them. They are also unsourced and redundant. The next sentence gives identical information, and it is sourced. "Believing parents" is a POV phrase coming from traditions that strongly oppose infant baptism.--Drboisclair 02:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infant Baptism in the NT 

message: There seems to be a habit of hiding material that doesn't agree with an individual's POV. This is accomplished by deletion, moving, or creating a POV preamble. In the most recent example a reference to Catholic abbey Jules Corblet, who wrote : "In short, we do not find in the Scriptures any certain fact, any precise text that is able to demonstrate beyond question that one baptized infants in apostolic times." was promptly moved to the reference section and given a preamble of "Other scholars, even when they agree that there is no precise evidence of infant baptism in the earliest days of the Church (footnote link to moved work) think it probable that it was in fact practised". Does Corblet think it was probable in the first century? I don't know? If you have evidence that he did think this, please present. Please see read wikipedia's deletion policy if you really want to remove something. --Traveller74 11:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not ascribe motives to others. I have explained, now at length, why I have pruned the history section, which contained lengthy quotations from both sides, making it hard to read and POV in both directions.  --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  CTS, I wasn't referring to yourself. If you look carefully at the date/time, you'll see that this section was added before you removed the citation.--Traveller74 12:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, unless you moved it to the reference section, it could hardly be referring to you. --Traveller74 12:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad that you weren't referring to me, but I wasn't referring to myself. It is not good practice to ascribe motives to anyone, since it generates heat rather than light. One could just as easily see others attacking your motives. So, let's leave each other out of it, please. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information Hiding