I agree. It is outrageously false. But I’m sure there are some Protestants that believe it is unbiblical. Certainly not all Protestants.
As to the other sentence, @beaglelady, you keep dancing on my head about it:
“You originally said that baptism for them is often merely to offer comfort to the parents…”
I keep getting the sense that you don’t believe I ever read that. But I did. But I can’t be certain that it was in a paper written by the clergy or an official publication. I am happy to retract that comment I made about someone else’s comment - - if by doing so it no longer detracts from the real issue … which is how the Eastern churches officially explain why they allow Infant Baptism.
I can provide several more “official” writings that repeat, over and over, that when it comes to infants, they are not baptized for purposes of remitting sins. They have other reasons. And you must see that by now… with the several quotes I have provided, all of which consistently avoid the idea that infants are laden with sin.
Do you perceive the Nicene Creed as “in force” over anything that even looks like Baptism? For all we know, these churches might have a special term for what they do with infants… compared to what baptism does for non-infants…
I presume the Nicene Creed does not breakdown Baptism into “Paedo-Baptism” and “Credo-Baptism”?
"Infant baptism is the practice of baptising infants or young children.
“In theological discussions, the practice is sometimes referred to as paedobaptism, or pedobaptism, from the Greek pais meaning “child”. The practice is sometimes contrasted with what is called “believer’s baptism”, or credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning “I believe”, which is the religious practice of baptising only individuals who personally confess faith in Jesus, therefore excluding underage children.”
" Opposition to infant baptism is termed catabaptism. Infant baptism is also called “christening” by some faith traditions."
@beaglelady, apparently I don’t have the clearance for the dark web.
The last of my posting was from Google Books… is that a worthy substitute?
The important question is:
What is it about the Eastern communion that makes infant baptism different from adult baptism?
Some writings go so far as to say infant baptism is “optional” or “is allowed” … even while assuming that there are few devoted parents who wouldn’t want their infant to have it … because of its traditional universality.
While other writers say it is important…but not for the reason Western clerics would say.
P.S. - Huh?
I just realized what you posed the denial of sinful infants… I never said you said this:
Well, of course. That wouldn’t make sense in my scenario or yours. But what you have been saying is that you can’t believe the Eastern Orthodox have found a way to ignore creedal assertions that infants are without sin - - right? Isn’t that pretty much your objection?