Talk:Infant baptism

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, Jarrod Jabre 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)

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?

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)

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)