Talk:Infant baptism/Archive 1

Vandalism?

It looks to me like user with the ip 86.15.229.138 has been vandalizing the article. The user mad eth epic at the begninng way to big and made a mirad of other small changes that may indicate a bias against infant baptism. He actually erased the whole article at one point. Further the wikipedia anti-vandal bot interpreted some of that user's changes as vandalism. So I am reverting the article back to the state it was in before he started making edits.

Pedobaptism as status of membership

The Catholic Church recognizes three Sacraments of Initiation. The same is true of the Eastern Churches. In the Roman Church one normally receives these three Sacraments at widely differing times. In the Eastern Churches and the Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches, all three are normally recieved on the same day.

In any event, my point is that Baptism is only the first step toward full membership in a number of churches.

Christening

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)

I made a quick-and-dirty disambiguation page. --Sophroniscus 15:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The word christen comes from English culture and isn’t properly defined in the modern day. I think the article at http://www.baptism.org.uk/christening.htm would weigh in very well here. It is difficult to write an encyclopedia article on christening or baptism without listing the differences of the view of numerous denominations. Perhaps the terms christen & baptize should only have a basic definition & then contain links to a denomination's encyclopedia entry regarding the topic. The material on baptism.org is public domain & the copyright page advocates a welcome of wider circulation in the public domain. Gladius1 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

why revert?

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)

Yeah, Why revert?

I agree :-) I think I added a lot. If I made mistakes, I would love to have them fixed. If I was biased or unfair, I would honestly appreciate improving. But I am baffled why the whole article was reverted when I more than doubled it. If you take the time to give me some feedback, I would be willing to fix anything myself. I know this article is not anywhere near done. But I felt this was a good step. It seems to me that communication is an important part of collaboration. Please communicate feedback to me regarding the entry.--GFrege 05:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Have these same arguments been presented on the "Believer's Baptism" page? The POV assumption by having these on this page is that there is something inherently wrong about infant baptism. The vast majority of Christians worldwide engage in this practice; it would be far more appropriate to make these arguments elsewhere, why some Christians don't practice it.

Also, the section is far too lengthy. There ought to be a "criticisms" section, but it ought to be concise and clear, pointing the reader to other articles for further reading {Believer's baptism, Baptism, Sacrament, etc.).

It still needs a lot of work, and these NPOV sections don't belong on this article. I suggest starting a new article for these criticisms. Remember, the view that infant baptism is wrong is only maintained by a small minority of Christians worldwide. It's a minority view which deserves mention, but needs to be treated appropriately. KHM03 13:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I need to think about how to apply them. If other can also think about how to apply them, that would be great.

Did younotice I made substantial changes to it last night? I reorginized it and added a lot.

Maybe one way to address your POV concern is to add a criticism section to believers baptism. Avoiding the details theological arguments for and against infant baptism and believers baptism in both entries might make the POV concerns easier but it will also impoverish the articles. Maybe we can figure out a way to do both. I would love to add a criticism section to believers baptism :-)

Also, I am glad that if you saw any POV in the article it was anti-pedobaptist because I am, in fact, a pedobaptist. I guess that means my point of view didn't come across in the article :-)

Isn't the "arguments for" secontion longer than the "arguments against" section?

Thanks very much for the feedback. It helped undertsand you valuable suggestions. I hope we can continue to work together to improve this and other articles.GFrege--GFrege 17:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks KHM03. I was hoping we wouldn't scare off another newbie. Looks like he/she might stick around. Liblamb 18:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV template?

What's up with that? KHM03 10:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What struck me the most was this quote:

Presbyterian and Reformed Christians hold the weakest view of the four about the grace conveyed in baptism.

Although some of it may be an issue of cleanup and proper wikification, the whole pedobaptism vs credobaptism section reads far too much like a pedobaptist apologetic article. I shouldn't be finding statements like:

If one answers these fundamental questions this way, then the practice of infant baptism looks differently.

in there. I'm working through this article from start to finish, and it'll probably take quite a while. At the moment I'm focusing on making it flow like an encyclopedia more than fixing NPOV; some bits are way too long though, and eventually will probably have to be cut down. I will of course discuss anything I think may cause disagreement in here first. --BigBlueFish 11:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

As I go through this article, I'm going to keep a note of things that I'm not sure are accurate or neutral. I won't touch them without the input of other editors. Your opinion most appreciated. --BigBlueFish 12:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Top of Theology section: "baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision" - is this generally accepted? Perhaps ought it be worded a little more loosely? Something like that it bears similarities to the Old Testament ritual of circumcision. What is generally agreed?

--BigBlueFish 11:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It then appears to be reiterated as Presbyterian/Reformed doctrine, on more or less the same terms. Which is right, or how it should be presented is quite out of my depth. Someone with more detailed knowledge of interdenominational doctrine needs to clear this up. --BigBlueFish 15:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Statements that I have removed outright. As far as I can see, they don't add anything but POV... if I overlooked informative meaning do add back that meaning, but without the bias: --BigBlueFish 15:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• "These three Christian traditions answer the theological question in the last section in the most robust way." on the Catholic, East Orthodox and Anglican theology of pedobaptism. --BigBlueFish 15:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• "One way to characterize the difference between pedobaptists in these particular denominations and credobaptists is in terms of how baptism and faith relate. Many pedobaptists view baptism as the sacrament in which a believer receives the gift of the Holy Spirit thus marking it as the beginning of faith; whereas practitioners of believers' baptism view baptism as an act of already-present faith." - deleted from the Lutheran section of Differences among pedobaptists. Not POV but belongs in the pedo- versus credo- section - when I get there I'll put it back. --BigBlueFish 15:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Similarly, "Presbyterian and Reformed Christians hold the weakest view of the four about the grace conveyed in baptism." - from the Presbyterian section, goes, I suppose, with the first one. --BigBlueFish 15:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've now gone through everything up to the Pedobaptism versus Credobaptism section once. Now I've got there and considered it as a whole, I'm wondering how much of this debate should be here, as a lot of it would belong equally in the Credobaptism article. Should there perhaps be a new article for this issue? If not then there needs to be a distinction between arguments supporting infant baptism and arguments against credobaptism and vice versa, and the two that imply conflict with the other practice must be reiterated in the credobaptism article. --BigBlueFish 16:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Baptism & Circumcision -- the comparison is typical, though it doesn't capture all of the nuances of baptismal theology. The ritual isn't similar...the theology behind it is. It is not unique to Reformed theology. Generally, I agree with your edits and certainly with your intent to make it all NPOV. I admit that I am a strong believer in infant baptism (and certainly do not apologize for that), so I just like to watch these kind of article to make sure that the other perspective, "believer only" baptism (which I obviously find inadequate), doesn't come off as "the norm" (which it isn't). KHM03 23:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me one bit that KHM03 is raising the NPOV issue. I added much of the content of this article. From almost the first addition KHM03 reverted the article. Having read some of his stuff, I get the impression that her fancies himself one of the religion experts here and seems to think that he OWNS any religious topic he deems to tack up.

I have no problem with improving the article in any way. It just bugs me that the guy kept reverting it at the beginning, made no subsequent contributions, except to revert. Make changes to the NPOV but be damned sure I'll be watching to make sure your Wesleyan/Methodist POV does not come through, like it does in your prevenient grace article. That article has serious problems with NPOV and depth. It would be great if you would fix and improve this article not turn it into surface discussion on the topic as seen from a Methodist perspective.

Some of the stuff you guys say above reveals a complete ignorance on the subject. It *IS* a standard claim that Baptism is at least type of circumcision. You people need to read the arguments for infant baptism given by Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc. and . Read the literature! Stop acting like the Methodist framework for understanding the differences between Christians traditions is authoritative.

Enough ranting for now, KHM03 needs to take a more humble and open approach to this article. I asked him to work with me from the beginning. He didn’t. He reverted and only explained why when someone else asked for an explanation. Improve the article without acting like you own it or that you are some sort of expert on theology. Please. (from anonymous User:67.161.106.73)

Anonymous User:67.161.106.73: Please review the policy No personal attacks. Thanks.

I do not feel that I "own" any articles, and welcome NPOV edits on any article. I don't know for sure exactly who you are and what edits of yours I reverted; my intention always has been to make articles as accurate and NPOV as possible, so I could only surmise that in my opinion your edits were either inaccurate or POV (or possibly both). Either way, I certainly never meant to offend or upset you, and for that I am sorry.

Please do watch my edits and make any changes you deem necessary...this includes the article on Prevenient grace. I'm nots ure why you seem so upset about baptism/circumcision, since I agreed with your point. To mention a correlation is perfectly appropriate, and I mentioned that. None of the article is placed within a Methodist framework, however (we use different language), so I'm not sure where that critique is coming from.

I am not the world's foremost expert on theology; I am a seminary-trained ordained pastor, so I do know something. I sincerely hope that our interactions in the future are more positive for you. Please let me know on my talk page, in a respectful manner, of course, if you would like to continue this conversation. Thanks...KHM03 11:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, I apologize if what I said came off as personal. I didn't intend it as a personal attack. I have been frustrated with my experiences here because there are times I have made substantial revisions to this article and had it erased in a day by a revert with absolutely no explanation. It seems far more sensible to retain the good stuff of additions and change the bad stuff rather than simply revert an article.

Further, previous discussion on this site involving KHM03 and others and stuff I have read in the talk and discussion pages of other websites indicates that people who regulalry work on religious articles know each other and, in some cases, have formed a social bond that results in "backing each other up" against new people or outsiders. I just get the sense that clicks form that undermine objectivity in that people's sense of friendship, loyalty, or even just plain bare familiarity causes them to "stick together." If I am off base, chalk it up to me being a newbie. I plan to stick around more and perhaps my view will change. As of now, I see a sort of tribalism or an "outsider/insider" distinction at work in some of the religious articles. This is a kind of bias seperate from a typical NPOV issue.

Either way, I apologize if I was a bit irritated. I didn't mean any offense. I meant to defend against a sort of wiki-elitism by wiki-regulars that I have observed in the past and on various articles.

Well hopefully this dispute is now over... personally it surprised me to see this because since I started editing the article I've not experienced any disagreement, and I'm a real Wikipedia newbie... maybe you just need to approach it differently. Anyway... you mention that you have read the literature related to the theologies behind different denominations' baptismal practices - perhaps you'd like to contribute to that section, which while I can remove POV content, I haven't really got the knowledge to add more balanced detail. If you know of any external references pertaining to a certain denomination's views, produced by the adminsitration of that denomination (I don't know if this exists, but I wouldn't be surpised if, for example, the Vatican put out papers about their views) I think that these would be a useful addition to the article. Also your views on the pedobaptism versus credobaptism discussion as per above would be appreciated. --BigBlueFish 11:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

By Water & the Spirit is the official statement on baptism by the UMC...you're welcome to review it. KHM03 12:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal?

Any objections to removing the NPOV template? -- KHM03 19:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Review WP:NPOV. KHM03 13:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Going back through the article I agree with the decision to lose the NPOV tag but keep the cleanup tag - it still needs a lot of work though, despite having had all the statements that were particularly biased changed. Eventually I will come back to this article when I have the time to really tackle it if it hasn't been already by then.

In particular, the structure of the article from the Pedobaptism versus Credobaptism heading onwards needs attention. A lot of it is rather undirected (just read the first few lines...) and reads like a sermon about the topic (I'm still not entirely convinced that parts of it don't originate from one) rather than an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's purpose isn't to guide people through choosing which type of baptism to prefer, rather to state the positions that are taken.

• Pedobaptism versus Credobaptism should be a more concise summary of the disagreement of the two; whether they oppose each other or are just a preference of one over the other etc.
• Arguments for infant baptism should identify the different theological arguments that support infant baptism
• Arguments against infant baptism should identify the different theological arguments that oppose infant baptism

and the rest is the rest. The subsections of these listed sections aren't very encyclopedic though this reflects the approach to the content of the sections; they probably shouldn't remain in the eventual article. Treatment of the issue of credobaptism needs to be cut down to what is relevant to pedobaptism. I think it's important that this article is developed alongside the Believers baptism article, which is needs more added to it, though less taken away. That's my two cents. --BigBlueFish 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For Reference's Sake

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)

Intro and ceremony edits for clarity

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)

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)

Adult baptism

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)

Surely any Christian church baptizes adults? It's very biblical. There's an LCMS source in the external links; here's a PCUSA source too: http://pcusa.org/101/101-infant.htm

It would be good to see references to Unbaptisms and how to get a Baptism annulled too. There is a growing call for these. --User:arthurchappell

Please Sign your comments! --CTSWyneken 14:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Household Baptisms

"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)

Clean up flag

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

I do!!!

Confused

Isn't infant baptism needed to provide the child with focus and direction ? - Rezomynd

Declaring faith in Jesus

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)

I agree. The statement should be revised to include the other Persons of the Trinity. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Typical age of child?

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)

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)

Major Clean-Up Needed

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)

Infant Baptism in the NT

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)

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)

"Explicit"

By an "explicit" mention of baptism of infants I understand something like "Infants were baptized" or "Such and such infants were baptized". By an "implicit" mention of baptism of infants I understand something like "a complete household was baptized", which, if the word "household" is taken to include infants, implicitly (not explicitly) says infants were baptized.

I believe the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language understands "explicit" in the same way, since it defines the word as "1. Expressed with precision; clearly defined; specific. 2. Forthright in expression; unreserved; outspoken."

However, CTSWyneken understands "explicit" in some other way. So would VCTSWyneken either

• explain that understanding and how it applies to the New Testament on infant baptism; or
• quote one or two of the scholars who "believe these passages are explicit references", not just implicit ones.

CTSWyneken has moved to a more suitable position the to my mind quite rudimentary Encarta treatment of the question. I have added to it a series of references that are, at the very least, "of equal value". Lima 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Encarta quote is simply a start, done quickly to provide a Britannica citation made under the viewpoint that infant baptism was not practiced in the first century. Both are not the best sources for their given positions, but they are adequate, since the authors of both are competent scholars writing in their own field of study. Given a bit of time, it will not be difficult to move to more substantial references.

On "explicit": Let's not play word games. The sentences I deleted suggests that one side of the argument is right and another wrong. This is, in my view, an attempt to push one POV over another. There are a substantial number of scholars that believe the New Testament clearly records the baptism of infants when it talks about "households" being baptized, just as others do not see this.

Please also do not play reference games. Can you produce a source that says, exactly: "The NT does not explicitly record the baptism of infants." Maybe, maybe not. Same on this side. I'm betting it would not be hard, however, to find scholars who state that both positions are clear.

The goal here should be to find language that describes the two prevailing views on infant baptism in the first century. I believe the sentences I deleted are redundant, covered in the paragraph below them in both spirit and substance, try to tip the article against infant baptism without seeming to do so and, if we want to play games, are Original Research. Let's drop them and fashion the broader paragraph to fairly express both views and to contain substantial citations. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I produce a source that says that the New Testament does not explicitly speak of infant baptism? Can I produce a source that says that the New Testament does not explicitly speak of CTSWyneken? The New Testament implicitly speaks of CTSWyneken in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 and many other places. But it is nonsense to ask me to produce a source that says that the New Testament does not speak of CTSWyneken explicitly. It is just as much nonsense to ask me to produce a source that says that the New Testament does not explicitly speak of infant baptism.

I asked CTSWyneken to produce a source that says that the New Testament does explicitly speak of infant baptism. If the New Testament does explicitly speak of infant baptism, surely someone would have noticed it. But all that CTSWyneken replies is: "There are a substantial number of scholars that believe the New Testament clearly records the baptism of infants when it talks about 'households' being baptized." I have failed to find the word "explicitly" in that statement.

I defended the word "explicitly" because CTSWyneken twice explained his excision of my statement that the New Testament contains no explicit mention of the baptism of infants by saying: "It is the opinion of many scholars that the the New Testament does explicitly mention infant baptism." If CTSWyneken is satisfied with "It is the opinion of many scholars that the New Testament (implicitly) mentions infant baptism when speaking of the baptism of households", there is no problem. It is exactly what I have stated.

The short opening paragraph is necessary:

1. because people like Traveller74 and those whom Traveller74 quotes say, without putting in the word "explicitly", that the New Testament has no mention whatever of infant baptism.
2. as a lead-in to the following phrase, "Some scholars conclude ..." Conclude from what? They conclude from the lack of (explicit) mention of infant baptism in the New Testament that there was no infant baptism in the first century.

The opening paragraph does not "suggest that one side of the argument is right and the other wrong." By adding the word "explicit", it limits the Traveller74 claim, reducing it to something that none can gainsay, namely: "There is no explicit proof that infant baptism was practised." Then it balances this first undeniable statement with an equally undeniable opposing statement: "There is no explicit proof that infant baptism was not practised." NPOV is obtained by balance, not just by omission. Lima 17:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd appreciate it if you would address me directly, rather than in the third person. If you're willing to talk, rather than simply revert my work, I prefer that to the games we could play over terms and citations.

If we are going to talk, let me try to summarize where we are.

I believe the current sentences have two problems: they make a statement that suggests the supporters of infant baptism are wrong in asserting that infant baptism was practiced in New Testament times. The sentences also are unnecessary, since the same points are or can be made in the context of the rest of the section. You disagree.

What I would suggest is that we eliminate these sentences and find a way to make their points in the rest of the section. The whole thing needs a rewrite in any case and much documentation is needed. Your statement above about the opinion of some scholars that it is implicit works. We can express the opposing viewpoint with words like: "they do not find direct reference to infant baptism in the scripture." Does that work for you? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the person who first introduced "explicit" into this paragraph. I am a pedobaptist and used the word "explicit" because it is the standard word used by both sides when describing the NT evidence for infant baptism. The person above who defined explicit and implict was entirely right. More importantly, this use of those two words is fairly standard in the theological literature on this subject. As a pedobaptist, I admit there case for infant baptism is implict JUST LIKE the case for the Trinity (which I also hold). The Bible, in my view, teaches the Trinity but never uses the word "Trinity" nor does it explicitly say that God is "one being exiting in three co-equal persons." A teaching is not inferior because it is taught implicitly rather than explicitly. In fact, many contemporary Christian beliefs are thought even by there proponents to be taught implicitly (dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, Trinitarianism, Pre-millenial rapture, etc.). So it is not POV to say the NT does not explicitly teach infant baptism. It is true and even people who believe in infant baptism, like me, willinglu concede it and go on to make an implicit case. --GFrege 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(NOTE: A few years ago I did a major revision of this article and added a lot of content. I also have been tweaking it from time to time but admit it needs a lot more work. It needs to be cleaned-up, shortened, and made to clearer).--GFrege 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your work and your point of view here. Perhaps I was not clear here. I do not think it is necessary to take up the reason why scholars on both sides of these issues have to be mentioned at all. This leads to the constant expansion and near edit wars that brought me back to this article after some time away. Please see my further comments below. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please limit quotations in this article

Friends, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide reference information, not to argue out disputed issues, provide a text book or a list of quotations. To do this well, we need to limit explanitory information, quotations from sources, etc. References to important sources in notes is sufficient to help people gage the reliability of the information we present and locate the detail of apologetic for one position or another. I've made a first pass on the history section to trim all extra material out of it. Please feel free to adjust my wording, expand a bit and smooth it out. Please do not, however, embellish the position of one side or another. Let's make this thing readable -- OK? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Lima 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be a little more careful on what you are actually removing. I noticed your comment states that you removed itmes that were covered in the remainder of the article, however I find this not the case for works by the Catholic abbey Jules Corblet(history section). The quotation is not excessive, and provides balanced POV. The next paragraph is much longer and could be considered speculative and biased, yet it remains.--Traveller74 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The quotations are not excessive, and are well within wikipedia's guidelines. Can you give a more substantial reason for your persistent deletions? The Corblet citation does in no way violate wiki guidelines it adds weight to a controversial issue that has already been challenged. You can keep deleting, I'll keep adding. Seems a little childish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

The history section is not the place to include specific quotations. If we put one in, we invite others, which will invite others, etc. I have no problem with the addition of source citations without a quotation in the reference, but am not inclined to let this decend again into an edit war. As is, this ses-saw between you and Lima has made it difficult to fill the section out. The prose was terrible and is still not very good. In addition, we have not traced the development of the growth of opposition to infant baptism after the sixteenth century, which, IMHO, we should do in a sentence or two, along with a neutral description of the apologetic exchange between the two.

As far as the sections below, my comment was intended to indicate that the subject was covered below. You are welcome to develop why opponents hold what they do. Let's keep in mind, however, that this article is about infant baptism and that there is, I believe, an article on believer's baptism. What we have here should be a summary of its arguments agaist infant baptism and what we have there a summary of the arguments for infant baptism. I fail to see how NPOV and harmony can be achieved otherwise. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a few things I'm trying to achieve by the rewriting, deletions, slight additions, etc. One, is better writing. When I found it, the section was disorganized, laden with quotations from all sides, written almost entirely in the passive and with qualifications on all sides. I've edited it to a better, but far from perfect state, that a curious reader can actually understand. The guiding principle I'm going for here is WP:Summary style and the WP:MOS, WP:NPOV and a few others.

In the little time I've spent back here, I haven't heard you explain why you wish to put this quote here. What does it add to the fact that some do not think that infant baptism was practiced in the first century? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Some seem to have a problem that Infant Baptism was not "Explicitly" mentioned in the NT, maybe we can start a wiki Bible and add it in. This quote, by a notable Catholic writer on baptism, establishes that it is highly unlikely that early Christians practised infant baptism. NPOV is not obtained by omission, but rather balance. Having one poorly sourced sentence stating that some (unnamed) scholars think that infant baptism is not mentioned in the NT hardly adds any weight, or gives the reader confidence in the assertion. The fact is that Infant baptism is not "Explicitly" mentioned in the NT. I'm happy not to add any additional citations, provided this particular one stays. The only question is, can yourself and Lima live with it? --Traveller74 12:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not warrented here, so please do not use it. First, let me say that it is not our purpose here to put our own theories into the text of a wikipedia article. It is our task to summarize what the whole field of scholarship says along these lines. Second, the opinion of one writer does not establish anything, when there are a legion of others with all manner of positions on this subject. The problem, as is demonstated by this morning's developments, that detailing them will expand this section and load it down with quotations. Third, you seem to miss that there is a scholar noted in the reference who says what we summarize in the first sentence. There would be more if you were more willing to allow the article to develop in an NPOV direction, allowing us to look for sources with some authority to add. Fourth, since I have never heard of the writer you are quoting and I work in a graduate school of theology's library, he is hardly notable. J. Jeremias, on the other hand, who comes to the same conclusion but advocates infant baptism, who is a major figure in exegetical scholarship, is another matter... As is Grenz, who we cite, who leaves room for the possibility, which he thinks remote, that household baptism included children.... there are many shades of opinion on this one.

So... let's stick with a summary phrase, which I have no objection to tweaking, and leave the references to the notes. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no suggestion of individuals inserting their own theories in this particular article. Secondly, I'm sure in some fields of scholarship one could conceivably summarize the whole field, with most scholars in general agreement. As most are probably aware, this particular field has a great deal of controversy, and a great number of scholars with widely differing opinions. This unfortunately provides a large gray area for bias, which is often compounded by editors belonging to one denomination or another. Thirdly, the mere fact that one individual (regardless of where they happen to be employed), regards one particular writer as notable or not is of little or no consequence. Moreover the fact that one is paid to study a particular denomination or religion, in no way guarantees a NPOV. Some might even see it otherwise.

The reason for talking about Corblet's notability was that you asserted he was notable. I have no problem with this scholar in particular. In fact, I suggested we cite him in the note. What I am suggested is that it introduces a POV into our text to quote one scholar, but not others. As you've pointed out, and I, there are many viewpoints on this issue. If we start quoting one, we will have to quote others. Fairly shortly, we will have a quote book. Concerning summary style: since the articles wikipedia deems best employ it (see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria) we should employ it. It is possible to use it for this question, since there are basically two positions with many shades on the subject. Our two sentences, tweaked and refined, can cover this waterfront, especially if we document each shade in the footnote. This does a service to those who want to know more, without burdening those who do not.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The crux of the issue could be stated something along the lines "There is no firm evidence that establishes practice or non-practice of infant baptism during first-century Christianity. Most, if not all scholars conclude that the New Testament contains no explicit mention of infant baptism being practiced. This however this does not establish that it wasn't practiced, as many scholars and most of Christendom understand some New Testament passages implying infant baptism was practised." Then lead into second-century, where facts are much clearer, and although rarely used, few if any would doubt its practice. Any thoughts on this draft? --Traveller74

[outdenting] No, it does not, because it tilts the argument towards those who argue against infant baptism. To remain POV, we need to state the positions of both sides, which, by and large, break down along the lines of confession. (with the exception of an infant baptism advocate like Jeremias here believing it was not practiced in the first century and a believers baptism advocate there who admits it is possible that it was practiced in the first century) So I would go with something like: "There is no consensus among scholars concerning the date at which infant baptism was first practiced. Some believe that infants were included in general references to baptism in the New Testament and other first century Christian Literature, while others find such evidence uncertain at best." I'm not, by the way committed to this prose, nor the order of the phrases. I'd also love to rework it into the active tense somehow, but I have a maddeningly busy schedule this AM. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Stating positions both for and against first-century practice seems reasonable, two paragraphs would be better, one for, one against (with limited, but similar lengths), in summary format as requested. Trying to fit both sides into one paragraph could confuse the reader, and would possibly trigger another edit sees-saw mentioned previously. Separate paragraphs could be put in context by beginning along the lines "Most scholars who support ... assert ...", giving context to any assertions. Also, I find your suggested paragraph has a POV tilt toward those who practice/support infant baptism, only giving a minor hint of any objection (during the last sentence), of which you only mention those who concede that evidence is possible. There are at least two entirely separate schools of thought on this subject, glossing over any objections for or against, would be misleading the reader --Traveller74 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as we don't allow the paragraphs to grow too long, two paragraphs are fine. I'm not committed to any particular prose, so we can always discuss precisely how something is said to achieve text everyone sees as fair, reasonable complete, as readable as possible and even-handed. I'll copy my paragraph to a new section below so that it is visible to all and split it.

As we do this, I'd like to suggest a plan to keep the history section readable. We cam -- and should -- revamp the sections pro and con the occurs later in this article. Let's save the major apologetics for that section -- or perhaps for a new article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Two summarised paragraphs on first century practice should be sufficient for this section. As you've suggested, a talk thread to propose these is a great idea.--Traveller74 06:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, while pushing for a removal of citations, bible verses should also be limited, or assembled and placed in footnote sections, as many scriptures could be quoted supporting believers baptism, or that households did not always include infants. This, in turn, could lead to a mushroom of Bible verses being quoted/referenced. --Traveller74 23:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[outdenting] To be clear, I'm not asking for the removal of citations, just quotations. It is helpful to include in the notes citation information that interested readers can use to locate a more detailed discussion of the issue. Also, I prefer any scripture verses cited to be put in the notes at all times, since they disturb the flow of an article. I'm not sure that, with a formulation such as the one I've suggested above, that we need scripture citations at all. They are in the scholarship we cite. So, I'd suggest we find several good, scholarly treatments of each position, cite them in the notes and move on. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As requested, a valid reason for retaining the Corblet citation has been given. And now Corblet himself is under scrutiny. Certianly many notable sources could be found to support the assertion that infant baptism was not founded among first-century Christianity, and that it was only rarely practiced during the second. However this would only compound the very problem (if indeed there is one) this talk thread was started to solve. And as you suggest, many more could be found that assert otherwise.

A summary style, while it may please some individuals, is not required by wikipedia. Furthermore, given the precariousness of the subject, the summary itself could be construed as mere speculation, whereas, a citation is more likely to give the reader confidence regarding statements. In short, it adds weight where needed.

I’m happy with the spirit of Lima’s most recent edit, and the fact that Corblet is retained.--Traveller74 15:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Information Hiding

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)

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)

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)

Also, unless you moved it to the reference section, it could hardly be referring to you. --Traveller74 12:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

The need to set off the concept "Believer's Baptism"

This phrase should be set off with quotation marks since it implies that infants cannot be believers. This is the belief of some of the traditions that practice what is called "believer's baptism." By simply using it without quotation marks, the POV of anti-pedobaptism is pushed. In order to avoid the quotation marks we could call it "adult baptism" without the quotations. Those who practice infant baptism believe that it too is "believer's baptism" because they believe that infants can believe.--Drboisclair 15:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The term believer's baptism is appropriate even without quotation marks because it indicates the emphasis laid on personal belief as an a priori condition for valid baptism in the traditions that practice it. Infant baptizers, on the other hand, either deny that an infant can believe (Presbyterians) or that they need to believe in order for the rite to be valid (Lutherans, Catholics, etc.). Eugeneacurry 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of Drboisclair's testimony about Lutheran belief, we must avoid using unnecessarily the term "believer's baptism". We can express the idea without employing that term as if it were an accepted neutral expression. What about (in the lead) "... practice what they call believer's baptism"? Or baptize only those who have made a personal profession of faith"? Or better expressions that persons wiser than me can think of.

The word "also" is out of place in that phrase in the lead. It suggests that "... they practice 'believer's baptism'" as well as infant baptism. Lima 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What Lima suggests is very important. Wikipedia does not call "adult baptism" "believer's baptism". These changes should be made to make the article NPOV. Whenever a POV is stated as in the phrase itself: "Believer's Baptism" it needs to be qualified as "they call it ..." In the Lutheran section I have endeavored to indicate ad nauseum that this is what Lutherans say and believe. To simply put it per se into the text is tantamount to attributing a POV to Wikipedia.--Drboisclair 14:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does call "adult baptism" "believer's baptism." I understand that such a title may not gel well with the theological beliefs of some traditions but nonetheless believer's baptism has come to be the recognized way of referring to the practice of only baptizing individuals that make some explicit confession of faith both within Wikipedia and in the larger world. Demanding that the term believer's baptism be encapsulated in quotation marks doesn't remove POV but rather injects it in the article as such a move stands in contradistinction to the normal, un-quoted way of referring to the rite. Wikipedia generally and this article specifically doesn't put quotes around the world anabaptist even though groups labeled anabaptist vehemently decry this designation (As they see it any sort of baptism received as an infant isn't valid and thus isn't baptism and so the baptism they offer to converts from pedobaptist denominations isn't a re-baptism but rather the first and only baptism the individual has received). Anabaptist may not like the term but that's too bad, too much time has passed and that is simply how they are known. The same goes for believer's baptism. Unless we put quotes around words like anabaptist, Eskimo, the Prophet (when referring to Mohammed) and other dubious titles we should leave believer's baptism unquoted as well. Eugeneacurry 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia painstakingly tries to be NPOV, so perhaps we should also enclose "Anabaptist" and "anabaptism" in quotation marks. Until attention was directed at this article it appeared that advocates of "believer's baptism" had pretty much dominated this article to get their point across that infant baptism was a late innovation in Christendom. I think that all sides should be heard fairly, and, at least in this article, the POV designation "believer's baptism" should remain in quotation marks. I see that courteously it has, so the argument is moot.--Drboisclair 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed text for the beginning of the history section

Opening Draft

Draft A

There is no consensus among scholars concerning the date at which infant baptism was first practiced. At least two entirely separate schools of thought view the evidence for infant baptism in the first century differently.

One school believes that infants were included in general references to baptism in the New Testament and other first century Christian Literature.

Another school finds evidence first century infant baptism lacking or uncertain at best.

Friends: Traveler and I have come to the conclusion that stating the two positions on infant baptism in the first century would be good. Please feel free to propose a revision below. May I suggest giving each new version a title with === to mark it as a third level heading? This will help us keep them straight.

What I hope we'll do is outlined in our conversation above. To summarize: We state everything as a summary of the opinions of one school or another (thus maintaining NPOV), we keep it short and in summary form, we leave all but the broadest arguments for later in the article, we do not quote the words of any scholar, but we do cite supporting formal, scholarly works in the footnotes. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And the first school finds lacking or at best uncertain any evidence that infant baptism was excluded in the first century. Lima 14:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot the paragraph breaks. If you want to flesh the thing out, Lima, please feel free to offer a revision. I don't think your point is needed and could lead to an apologetic exchange here, which I'd like to avoid. I think such makes the section harder to read. I do not oppose adding it, if you feel it necessary. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have been more explicit. As the text stood, it insinuated that the burden of proof lies on those who believe in first-century infant baptism. Since it is clear that infant baptism was universally practised at the end of the second century, and since there is no record of anyone complaining that this was a novelty, the burden of proof surely lies on those who claim that a change occurred after the first century. So, in response to your invitation, here is a revision. It omits the puzzling reference to "other first century Christian Literature" (what literature, precisely?):

Draft B

There is no consensus among scholars concerning the date at which infant baptism was first practiced.

One school believes that infants will have been baptized even in the first century, since there is no reason to think that the practice arose any later, and since general references to baptism in the New Testament may possibly concern infants also.

Another school, on the grounds that evidence of first-century infant baptism is lacking or uncertain at best, holds that infant baptism did not then exist.

Members of the first school may well believe that direct precise evidence of first-century baptism is altogether lacking; but absence of evidence for is not necessarily evidence against. So quotations such as what's-his-name the French Abbé's are quite irrelevant. Lima 18:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If possible can attacks on the other sides reasoning be avoided. It does nothing for the article.

Here is a proposal for one side of the argument: "Those who assert infant-baptism was not practiced during first-century Christianity claim no proof exists to show otherwise. In New Testament recounts, they find no explicit evidence that proves infant baptism was performed. However, most concede that infant baptism was practiced infrequently during the second-century, and commonly practiced during the third." --Traveller74 06:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, there should be no arguing whatever in the lead, just a statement of what each side believes. One side believes that infant baptism must have had very early beginnings, the other believes it began at some uncertain time between the years 100 and 200.

If Traveller's version of "one side of the argument" were acceptable, so, for the other side, would: "Those who believe infant baptism must have been practiced during first-century Christianity claim that no proof exists that it was introduced later. In New Testament accounts, they find no evidence, even implicit, that infant baptism was not already performed. And they point out that, though most members of the second school postulate that infant baptism was infrequent in the second century, they concede that it was in fact already practiced by then." (!) Lima 07:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Both paragraphs, although "one sided" give the reader enough information on the two overwhelming schools of thought. Addition of citations/footnotes will alow inquisitive readers a chance to probe further.--Traveller74 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If I understand Traveller correctly - I probably do not - there is now a third draft:

Draft C

There is no consensus among scholars concerning the date at which infant baptism was first practiced: two schools of thought view differently the situation in the first century.

Those who assert infant-baptism was not practiced during first-century Christianity claim no proof exists to show otherwise. In New Testament recounts, they find no explicit evidence that proves infant baptism was performed. However, most concede that infant baptism was practiced infrequently during the second-century, and commonly practiced during the third.

Those who believe infant baptism must have been practiced during first-century Christianity claim that no proof exists that it was only introduced later. In New Testament accounts, they find no evidence, even implicit, that infant baptism was not already performed. And they point out that, though most members of the second school postulate that infant baptism was infrequent in the second century, they concede that it was in fact already practiced by then.

If nobody else objects to this draft - I expect they will - neither will I object to it. But perhaps we should first wait for Traveller to confirm this text, edit it, or replace it. Lima 05:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apology to Lima for whatever is preventing his comprehension. And, no objections to Draft C. Thanks again. --Traveller74 11:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the substance of this draft works. I think the language is a bit convoluted, making it hard to read. If no one objects, let's move draft C to the article. Then if no one minds, I'll copyedit as time permits. In the mean time, let's document these views for scholarly sources. Is every game? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.

Here is a partially cited version of draft C.

Draft C 1.1

There is no consensus among scholars concerning the date at which infant baptism was first practiced: two schools of thought view differently the situation in the first century.

Those who assert infant baptism was not practiced during first-century Christianity claim no proof exists to show otherwise.<ref>The Encyclopœdia Britannica: "The whole early period knows baptism only for adults, who join themselves of their own resolve to the Christian community. Infant baptism appears sporadically towards the end of the second century and was practiced also during the following centuries, yet only as an exception." — Vol. 3, page 84.</ref> In New Testament recounts, they find no explicit evidence that proves infant baptism was performed.<ref>Catholic abbey Jules Corblet, writes: "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." - ''Histoire dogmatique, liturgique et archéologique du sacrement de baptême, Vol. 1, p. 380.''</ref> However, most concede that infant baptism was practiced infrequently during the second-century, and commonly practiced during the third.<ref>The religious historian Neander writes of the first-century Christians: "Faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was performed only in the instances where both could meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period. . . . That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus, a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognized as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of apostolic origin." — ''Planting and Training of the Christian Church.''</ref>

Those who believe infant baptism must have been practiced during first-century Christianity claim that no proof exists that it was only introduced later. In New Testament accounts, they find no evidence, even implicit, that infant baptism was not already performed. And they point out that, though most members of the second school postulate that infant baptism was infrequent in the second century, they concede that it was in fact already practiced by then.

--Traveller74 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it citations or is it quotations that CTS wants added? I can easily add either, or both, but I would like to know beforehand what is wanted. (Oh, and "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is not a citation. How many editions has that work gone through, changing the text of probably each of its articles several times?) Lima 05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the text as you have revised it. Much better prose. On the reference -- I'd prefer to avoid the quotation itself in the reference. A citation is sufficient, although Lima is correct that it lack all the information we need in one. (The current edition does not have this text, for example_ I'm not concerned about that, frankly, because I think we can replace the whole reference with any number of eloquent scholars of the adult baptism school. The same thing would be true in the infant baptism school paragraph. Typically, encyclopedias are not considered very authoritative, since they are tertiary in nature. (Although an article signed by a major scholar is accepted in academic circles as a formal reference).

Anyway, Since I think we're there in terms of a good, balanced text, let's put it in the article. As a have a few minutes here and there, I'll look for representative scholars of both views we can cite. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am unsure what answer CTS has given to my question; but I take it from his positive reaction to what Traveller has done, that he means quotations (the actual words) and not just citations (sources) are to be supplied.

I was not clear enough in what I said about the citation of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I have no objection to citing some edition of that work. The trouble is that I have found the quotation that Traveller gives neither in the 1911 edition that can be consulted on two Internet sites, nor in the 1998 edition that I have in CD-ROM form. So, unless the edition is specified, "Encyclopaedia Britannica" seems to be an invalid citation, since it cannot be verified.

I fear that other quotations also that have been attributed to various sources have in reality only been "lifted" from some leaflet or booklet that may have taken the quotation completely out of context. For my part, I intend to give only quotations from sources where everyone can check that what they say isn't followed by a "however". ,such as presumably is the case with the French priest who said there is no certain fact or precise text that is able to demonstrate beyond question that infants were baptized in the first century. I expect he went on to say that, however, there are indications that infant baptism was in fact practised then.

I must leave till later the insertion of those quotations and citations. I do not have time just now. Lima 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to include any words from the sources at all, just the citation information. The information is fine for the moment, since I think I can find a better source that makes the same point and that I can provide a full and precise citation. I think that, if we have good scholarly sources, it is wise to replace encyclopedia citations. It is true that they are good enough, especially when the signed author of an entry is a scholar expert in the field. But websites and encyclopedias are suspect in a lot of people's minds and should be used when nothing suitable is available to carry the point.

So, let's just move the text and find a better source to cite to back it up. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful for this explanation that I do not have to copy the quotations, and need only give the references. I presume that, for balance, the quotations will be removed from Traveller's texts. I will wait until that is done.

I am surprised that nobody has objected to the turgid and negative expression of both views. Lima 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason why we couldn't flip the negative expressions into positive ones. I'm content with it, since it is fairly clean and easy to read. I may just try to improve it a slight bit if time permits...

Anyway, what we want to do is fairly summarize the views of each side. This version accomplishes that, I think. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lima, please discontinue attacking material based on assumptions. Please try and assume good faith as others have done to you. Claims made are not exceptional and are in fact the view of a large portion of Christianity, even CTSWyneken mentioned writers with similar views. I'm sorry the Britannica version was not provided, I'll locate it when I have time. If I cannot, I'll find a better source. --Traveller74 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I was the person who originally used wrote much of this section (see what I wrote under the heading "explicit" above). Let me give my opinion. First, the problem with the draft proposals is that they start out by complicating the subject right off the bat. There really is something to be said for clarity. Second, some of the passages you gusy see as controversial really aren't. For example, the word "explicit" was seen as POV even thought it really is the standard view by BOTH sides to the dispute and even though it was put in by a person who believes in infant baptism. The problem, and I mean no disrespect when I say this, is that people who are less than experts in this area and haven't read even one who book on the debate about infant baptism (let alone several books on each side of the debate) bring a simplistic understanding of the debate to their reading of the article. More importantly, they bring their polemical concerns to the article. It often seems like people think of this in terms of a discussion they might have with a fellow believer on the opposite side of the debate and think "well I would never concede that infant baptism is not explicitly taught in the bible." So what? The VAST majority of real theologians who believe in infant baptism concede that it is not explicitly taught in the NT. Why they heck should we muddy the article with debates over words that don't really occur in professional theological works on this topic? In my opinion, we really should strive to keep things clear by not introducing both sides of the debate into every paragraph. lets start with things both sides agree on and then use modifiers and qualifiers to "tone down" claims that credobaptists disagree with. Third, this is an article about infant baptism not credo-baptism. There already is an article about credo-baptism. That article doesn't have the pedo-baptist disagreement represented in every possible area of disagreement, and rightly so. The article on infant baptism should explain infant baptism. It should say what infant baptism is, who practices it, and why they practice it. it is okay to include objections to it but this must not be on equal footing in either quantity or quality with the main point of the article. So, we can do all of this by not creating disputes over words that most theologians don't even engage in and by making the claims modest and clear. We are complicating the article too much and getting away from the purpose of having an encycloedia article on the topic--GFrege 06:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Lima 07:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

GFrege, thanks for your input on the subject. I agree with much of what you've said, but respectfully disagree on several things. First of all, this draft is about the first paragraphs in the history section, not the whole article. Second, I have read quite a bit of the literature on infant baptism, as I work in the library of seminary of the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod. Third, the point behind this exercise is to find language that everyone can agree on, that is not likely to set off constant edit wars between apologists on both sides, that reflects a divided opinion among scholars and does not become overly complex. I'd favor language in this section that simply states that some find infant baptism first practiced in the first century and others in the second. The shorter the prose is here, in keeping with summary style, the better. Whatever we come up with, we can support with references to scholarship, the better. This should be carried in footnotes without quotations. The problem with the word "explicit" is it sets off apologetics. You will have "explicit, but" and "explicit, don't you get it?" It is like starting a discussion on the trinity by saying the word trinity is not found in the Bible." Better to leave it out than to end up including the full debate here. That is the point I'm trying to make on that score.

So, the question at hand is: do you have a draft of these few paragraphs you'd like to propose that meets both your concerns and these? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and agree with a lot of what you said. I am very worried that we are are making the article worse by including every little quibble. It is impossible to satisfy everyone by making sure their view is presented at each juncture of the article. Further, if the Believer's Baptism article doesn't do it, it makes this article POV by comparison by including the views of credobaptists at every stage of this article but not including pedobaptists views at every stage in the Believer's baptism article. I propose that we keep in mind the goal of this article. This is a references work. Someone who doesn't know what infant baptism is (say a Muslim or Hindu) can look it up on wikipedia. So, we should tell them what infant baptism is, who practices it, how they practices it, and why they practice it (theology/biblical scholarship of infant baptism). It is fine to include criticisms of infant baptism but many wikipedia article have a criticism section so that the article doesn't get turned into a point-counter debate in every paragraph. The Believer's Baptism people do not have to have their view represented at every stage of the infant baptism article in order to avoid POV. If they think so, they are asking too much, undermining the clarity and purpose of a reference work entry on this topic, and don't do it in the article on their viewpoint. The way we seem to be going confuses the article by introducing both sides of the debate to any controversial claim. I suggest two alternate methods: (1) We could say something like "Proponents of infant baptism believe..." or "Scholars from Christian traditions that practice infant baptism believe..." Thus, we are not claiming it a fact that credobaptists object to. We are just explaining what pedobaptists believe and that is the whole point of the article. So it is NPOV without ruining the writing and clarity of the article. (2) We could be precise and stick to careful language that everyone agrees with. For example, "The New Testament doesn't include a specific example of infant baptism not does it explicitly command infant's of Christian's to be baptized." That sentence is literally true if we use the ordinary meaning of the English word "explicit" and the way the word "explicit" is used in this particular debate. Explicit would be: "Cornelius baptized his child Fred." Implicit is: "Cornelius and his whole household were baptized." The second sentence does not SAY an infant was baptized but it may IMPLY it. Implicit, after all, is related to the word "imply." Again, compare this with the trinity. Not only does the word "Trinity" not occur in the bible but neither does the words "One God existing in three separate but co-equal persons." The fact that there is only one God and that there are three persons called God IMPLIES (via deductive inference) that the three persons are the one God. The Bible teaches the Trinity but it does so by making logical inferences from Biblical premises not directly by explicitly stating: "The is one God existing in three persons." If it is good enough for the Trinity, it is good enough for infant baptism, IMHO. In this second proposal, we stick to the narrow set of facts that most scholars agree on so we don't have to explain credobaptist replies to every part of infant baptism IN THIS ARTICLE (it might be good for other articles). So, we should give a straightforward answer to the question: "What is infant baptism?" rather than a convoluted one that gives the credobaptist response to every point as we set it out. We should include criticism in a special section like most good wikipedia article do. --GFrege 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

GFrege, with all respect, you obviously have strong views on infant baptism, the Trinity, and possibly a many more theological subjects. And possibly you’re an expert in one particular denomination. However, this is not the Catholic encyclopaedia, and therefore should take many differing perspectives account with the goal of achieving NPOV.

I’m in no way advocating that this debate should be propagated throughout the article. However the History section should mention all significant viewpoints and objections where there is an absence of firm evidence.

Furthermore this article is not intended to promote infant baptism, but rather, to present the facts. And the facts are there are two schools of though on whether infant baptism was employed during first-century Christianity, omitting one could hardly be considered NPOV. In addition, we’re talking about less than seven lines of text in an opening statement, hardly a cumbersome debate.

As you've suggested, perhaps we could include a sub-section under History labelled "First-Century Criticism", or "First-Century Debate" or even “First-Century Controversy”. After all, the controversy is directly related to history. --Traveller74 10:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)