What the CoC is right about?

[longdistancerunner]

Just trying to think about what issues is/was the CoC right about.

1) It seems they are very right to oppose infant baptism and emphasize it is the individual's decision to follow a particular religion/sect of a religion. Although there are extreme social pressures brought to bear to get someone to convert I have never seen a demand that someone be baptized (maybe exceptions in a few cases for spouses).
2) Importance of baptism, although I view it as totally symbolic baptism does seem to be a ritual that is central to conversion. It has an interesting history and is not just a practice of Christians, Zoroastrians seem to have originated the practice.
3) No real beliefs I have seen in the spiritual importance of the body or burial practices, particularly once a person is deceased, the body is just something that will revert to dirt.
4) Education is generally respected very much and there is not an effort like with the Amish to restrict the level of education.
5) No opposition to almost any form of modern medical treatment.
6) No attempt to reinstitute jewish dietary practices.
7) Respect for civil law and authorities.

[faithandmore]

Infant baptism is "confirmed" when the child reaches a certain age, usually 15 or 16. So they really are given a choice as a later age.

[longdistancerunner]

[

Infant baptism is "confirmed" when the child reaches a certain age, usually 15 or 16. So they really are given a choice as a later age.

Interesting, how common is this? This was an enormous issue which led to Antibaptist and most modern protestant movements.

[faithandmore]

Infants have no knowledge or awareness they are being baptized, so it doesn't force them into anything. It is just symbolic and sprinkles some water on their heads. They don't know or care what is going on. Confirmation takes place at different ages in different religions. With Presbyterian it is around age 15 and they go through confirmation class then are presented to the church during services. My daughter did not want to do this, although she was christened as an infant.

I'd say most parents make their kids to follow their same religious faith whatever that is.

[longdistancerunner]

Infant Baptism does identify the individual as belonging to the specific religion although obviously the infant doesn't know anything. There is a reason it is done and a reason why people were so opposed to the practice by the Catholic Church for centuries. Symbolic rituals can have great importance even when they seem meaningless.

[agricola]

I believe for LDS (which also has confirmation) do so at age 7 - aligning with the famous statement 'give me a child until he is seven and he will be mine for life' (or something like that).

At that age, the child is assumed to know enough about the faith they are being raised in to be able to 'agree' to follow it. They don't have to know everything.
Roman Catholics have 'First Communion' at that age, I believe.

[FinallyFree]

I think they have the correct interpretation of the book of Revelation.

[teresa]

Just trying to think about what issues is/was the CoC right about.

1) It seems they are very right to oppose infant baptism and emphasize it is the individual's decision to follow a particular religion/sect of a religion.

Yes and No. I think baptism is an adaptation of the Jewish ritual bath as practiced at the time of Jesus. The ritual bath of immersion was done on a regular basis in order to remove "uncleanness" before approaching God. This "uncleanness" was understood to be the result of being a created being subject to the temptations and physical corruption of the human body. So uncleanness was associated with mensuration, birth, death, and diseases that literally corrupted the flesh (or even houses). The individual had to become "clean" before approaching God, so as not to pollute God's environment when they approached to worship God.

As the Rabbis taught, a gentile man desiring to join the covenant group (that God had established with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) had to do more than undergo the ritual bath. They had to die to their old self and be born again as a new person. So their ritual bath of immersion was seen as being born anew. The next step was for the erstwhile gentile to be circumcised as was appropriate for a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The earliest church was composed of Jewish Jesus-followers. So their understanding of baptism would have been as a ritual bath that made an individual "clean" to approach God -- and if needed, as a ritual bath of being "born again" as a new person. Paul argued that one ritual immersion was enough, for the person who had died with Jesus in baptism would be resurrected to a new life in the time to come.

But in the earliest church, it was the Patriarch of the family who decided that his household would be baptized. Including servants and infants.

[B.H.]

I have been working out in the yard for momma today. BH is a good son and helps his momma with yardwork. But I am filthy and dirty. Now that I am home I an going to go baptize off all this sweat and dirt and be clean. You never know when mnala might appear at my door and know and I don't want to offend him by nasty smells.

[FinallyFree]

I was thinking about this topic when I was lying in bed last night. I don’t think the CofC is right about much, IMO. I don’t agree with a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible, and I don’t think the important thing is being right about everything. I have been out of the CofC almost nine years now and have never missed it for one second.