Where do you fall on this baptism spectrum?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm asking what you personally believe, not what your church or denomination does. To summarize the positions:

Extreme paedobaptist
Believe that infant baptism is not only valid and commanded by God but also an obligation of parents to have carried out and a sin to neglect. Many also believe that getting rebaptized if one is baptized as an infant is a sin as well.
Examples: Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, conservative Anglicans, Presbyterian and Reformed, some Methodists and Lutherans

Moderate paedobaptist
Believe that infant baptism is valid, however respect the wishes of parents who disagree and don't consider it a sin to not have it done, also don't consider it a sin for someone baptized as an infant to be baptized as an adult though it is unnecessary and meaningless and the second baptism is not valid, hence they won't baptize someone a second time even upon request.
Examples: United Church of Christ, most Anglicans/Episcopalians, more liberal Presbyterians, some Methodists and Lutherans, some Church of the Nazarene

Moderate credobaptist
Don't believe in baptizing infants and don't carry it out themselves, however don't require people baptized as infants to be rebaptized to join or participate in their churches though they'll usually encourage it.
Examples: Disciples of Christ, some Church of the Nazarene, more liberal Baptists, lots of non-denominational churches.

Extreme credobaptist
Believe that only believer's baptism is valid and all infant baptisms are meaningless. Require people baptized as infants to be rebaptized to join their church.
Examples: Most Baptists, Assembly of God, Pentecostals, the most conservative evangelical non-denominational churches.

I'd probably be closest to a moderate credobaptist. I was raised in a moderate paedobaptist tradition, that's what almost all my family is. It just so happens my church's position is roughly along these lines as well.

Church of the Nazarene while pretty extreme on most things are big time Moderate Heroes here and basically leave it up to the pastor or individual church what they want to do, and many of their churches leave it up to the parents to decide if they want to have their baby baptized or simply do a dedication. I know of at least one non-denominational church here that does the same.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Somewhere between extreme and moderate paedobaptist. I voted moderate because I think that saying it's a sin to want to be re-baptiszd is a little absurd (though it is stupid because the reasons why one would want to be re-baptized are what other sacraments such as confirmation are for).

[dead0man]

I went with "extremecredo", but I probably should have went with "other" or the "non-C" one.  Do any of these groups think you MUST be publicly baptised or it doesn't count?  'cause that's stupid.  It's nice and all, but I would doubt He makes it a requirement to entry.

[dead0man]

Oh, and baby baptism is one of the dumber things I've run into.  Jesus doesn't care if you baptise your babies or if you were baptised as a baby.  It certainly aint getting your sinning ass into heaven.

[minionofmidas]

Not a christian (and voted that), but extreme credobaptist anyhow... infant baptism makes a mockery of the whole notion of Christianity being about individual's relationship to God/Jesus etc pp. From that point of view, one should actually consider the practice to be blasphemous.

Of course, that's because community religious practices are not about individual's relationship to the God in question.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I went with "extremecredo", but I probably should have went with "other" or the "non-C" one.  Do any of these groups think you MUST be publicly baptised or it doesn't count?  'cause that's stupid.  It's nice and all, but I would doubt He makes it a requirement to entry.

You're right, it is not a requirement to get into heaven unlike what some denominations believe.  All baptism is a public profession that you have accepted Christ into your heart.  Look at the thief on the cross in Luke 23. He accepted Christ just before he died right along side Jesus, but naturally he never had the chance to be baptized.  More modern examples are those who accept Christ on their deathbeds.  God is not necessarily going to heal them immediately so they can get baptized.  Instead, He may very well choose to heal them permanently and take them home to heaven.

I voted Moderate Credo, personally.

[Roemerista]

I am a Catholic, but baptism is one of the few things I have theological troubles with. Specifically the sin of the parents not to baptist the child. I feel that giving the child the choice, could give it a lot more personal meaning. Perhaps even leading to a more dedicated spiritual life.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Somewhere between extreme and moderate paedobaptist. I voted moderate because I think that saying it's a sin to want to be re-baptiszd is a little absurd (though it is stupid because the reasons why one would want to be re-baptized are what other sacraments such as confirmation are for).

My problem with that is that confirmation is basically just something adolescents are railroaded through now to please their parents and lacks any sincerity. I was confirmed about 15 years ago and it means nothing to me today. At my cousin's last week I got a similar impression from those involved, during the sermon the pastor mentioned confirmation used to have a minimum age of 17 to which I muttered "It should still be that way", most churches do it very poorly. I think some Catholic churches now confirm people as young as 8-9. It kind of reminds me of having elementary school kids sign those silly drug free pledges and pretending that will have any meaning ten years later. I know that I and a lot of others in my type of Christian tradition often fell away at some point and returned and now take a lot of pride in that their faith in now something they have for themselves and not just what they inherited from their parents, which is why there is such a desire by so many to get re-baptized even if they were confirmed (I'd be willing to take a bet that at least half the people at my church were in a Catholic or mainline Protestant confirmation.)

Not a christian (and voted that), but extreme credobaptist anyhow... infant baptism makes a mockery of the whole notion of Christianity being about individual's relationship to God/Jesus etc pp. From that point of view, one should actually consider the practice to be blasphemous.

Of course, that's because community religious practices are not about individual's relationship to the God in question.

Actually I think this ties in well to my criticism of confirmation above.

In all fairness though most paedobaptists today don't consider infant baptism something that should be done unless the parents intend to make an effort to raise the child in the church, and don't believe that baptism has any effect on salvation (even though lots of olds don't understand this which is why lots of non-practicing Christian couples have their kids baptized to please their parents who bug them about it), and most priests or ministers today wouldn't baptize a baby in a type of scenario where you have a grandparent babysitting it or something and they take the baby to the church and ask them without telling the parents (How often that happens is the type of thing I'd like to ask a Lutheran minister.)

[TJ in Oregon]

I chose extreme paedobaptist because I think part of the responsibility of parents in bringing children into the world is to raise them in the practice of faith. Baptism is a part of that, the start of that actually.

[RI]

I'm somewhere between extreme and moderate paedobaptist due to the way you worded it. I think that it's only sinful to not baptize your child if you're Catholic or a member of another church that teaches infant baptism. I think that Catholic parents have a responsibility, as TJ said, to raise their kids in the faith, and baptism is part of that. If my child, for example, wanted to be something other than Catholic in spite of that, it wouldn't hurt them in any way to have been baptized as an infant, and I think that any subsequent 'baptism' they may take part in is not sacramental and only an unnecessary physical act. Whether that physical act is sinful or not, I don't really know, but I would lean toward saying that it isn't by itself.

As far as the child understanding the meaning part, that's what confirmation and the process behind it is for.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So what about people that fall away after their confirmation and return later? Because that's a lot.

[RI]

So what about people that fall away after their confirmation and return later? Because that's a lot.

They need to go to reconciliation and work some things out before they are "full members" again, but they're free to return.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm talking about just as Christians rather than Catholics. Like I said earlier, I think that's why so many in my type of church want to be rebaptized. They view their Christian upbringing as kind of meaningless to the current day.

[ZuWo]

Moderate/Extreme credobaptist. My Christian faith is based on the Bible, and the model we see in Scripture suggests that one gets baptised only AFTER having decided to follow Christ. A baby cannot make that decision and should therefore not be baptised. A baptism of a baby is therefore entirely meaningless.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Moderate/Extreme credobaptist. My Christian faith is based on the Bible, and the model we see in Scripture suggests that one gets baptised only AFTER having decided to follow Christ. A baby cannot make that decision and should therefore not be baptised. A baptism of a baby is therefore entirely meaningless.

I always assumed you were Catholic because of Switzerland and that you supposedly went to a very traditional-style church.

[ZuWo]

Moderate/Extreme credobaptist. My Christian faith is based on the Bible, and the model we see in Scripture suggests that one gets baptised only AFTER having decided to follow Christ. A baby cannot make that decision and should therefore not be baptised. A baptism of a baby is therefore entirely meaningless.

I always assumed you were Catholic because of Switzerland and that you supposedly went to a very traditional-style church.

Switzerland is traditionally split between Catholics and Protestants (Zurich, my hometown, is one of the birthplaces of the Reformation after all). Of course, all this is getting more and more blurred in our modern society with many people not caring about religion at all.

I attend a rather conservative baptist-like free church in Zurich. I do in fact come from a Catholic family background in some way as both my mother's and father's side of the family were Catholic before they converted to protestantism.

[RI]

I'm talking about just as Christians rather than Catholics. Like I said earlier, I think that's why so many in my type of church want to be rebaptized. They view their Christian upbringing as kind of meaningless to the current day.

You weren't exactly specific. You only need to be baptized once in your life though, so doing it again is kinda pointless and has no effect other than perhaps making them feel good about themselves.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Write-in: hardcore!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You neglected the other axis of baptismal belief, sprinkers vs. dunkers.  While sprinklers tend to be paedobaptists and dunkers tend to be credobaptists, it is not a hard and fast rule.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This thread made me realize that it's a good thing Lewis isn't a Christian since based on other things he's said in the past there is no Christian denomination he wouldn't have absolutely irreconcilable issues with (which is no doubt part of the reason he is not a Christian.)

[minionofmidas]

there is no Christian denomination he wouldn't have absolutely irreconcilable issues with.

Well, duh. Their position on the significance of Jesus' life and death being the most obvious one.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I've always viewed baptism as something you do after conversion. Look at Acts 8 with Phillip and an Ethopian governmental leader.