This was @beaglelady’s response in the old thread:
@beaglelady offered this objection:
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…