|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Infant baptism!
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
By popular request:
What is it? How does it work? Who can perform it? How old should the infant be? Or is infant baptism just totally wrong for a myriad of reasons? Discuss! Debate! Hold forth your views! (And let us see how long it takes us to end up in Dead Horses... ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
[ 03. September 2003, 21:34: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871
|
Posted
Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid then not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.
I can't quote chapter and verse, but we all know where it comes from.
--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.
Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
I don't believe in infant baptism as I think it is very important for people to make up their own minds about whether they want to be Christians or not. Baptism symbolises dying to sin and rising to new life which the Reformed type in me wants to say comes by grace but through believing in Jesus. Babies cannot do this. More to the point, I don't really believe in original sin either so I wouldn't have any difficulty in saying that babies really need to repent and believe in the first place anyway, until they get older and start sinning. So, as Duchess once very memorably said, INSTANT HEAVEN for babies.
I eagerly await people to come and slap me down as I am well aware these are just my own views and many onboard would not agree!
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid then not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.
I can't quote chapter and verse, but we all know where it comes from.
Do you mean if we withold baptism from kids we are not letting them become Christians or take a role in the church?
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Infant baptism is valid but usually undesirable.
Valid, because salvation does not depend on the intelligence or knowledge of the saved person, and God is not bound by time.
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.
And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.
As pseudo-Christian folk religion gets rarer, the second of these reasons gets weaker - and we could have an argument about infant baptism being a useful occasion for evangelism.
Which ends you up in the position that many people I know are in that Christian parents often don't have their children baptised, and non-Christians do!
My daughter was not baptised as an infant. She chose baptism for herself later. Which is good ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.
Why do you consider this important?
quote:
And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.
This leads me to ask of those here who are priests, ministers, etc. who do infant baptism: Do you do infant baptisms for anybody, or only those of believing and practicing parents? And is this by your own decision, or that of a bishop/council/etc. higher up?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.
That's why the CofE has confirmation - where you confirm the vows made on your behalf by your parents yourself.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
I thought the Anglican deal was that the infant, or child, baptism is basically the parents making a public undertaking that they believe in the essentials of Christianity and that they would bring their child up within the faith. Also the event marked the church congregation welcoming the child into the body and promising themselves to participate in the child's Christian care.
Later on, when sufficiently mature, the grown child is Confirmed, by a ceremony which resembles the baptism of their infancy where they themselves are able to take the vows made on their behalf by their parents.
The way I see it, and a reason why I'm not particularly in favour of infant baptism, is that many unchurched people see baptism as a social acquistion and underneath I think there is a centuries old tradition that baptism provides protection from the Devil.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The "non-Christian parents do it as a purely social ceremony therefore infant baptism isn't right" is a great big red herring and erroneous logic. By the same logic we should give up celebrating Christmas because of all the non-Christians who like singing carols.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Day
Ship's revolutionary
# 3630
|
Posted
One good thing I think about Infant baptism is that it can get people into church who might never step foot in one unless it was for weddings etc.
And a lot of churches now are saying if you want to have your child baptised, then you need to go to some basic christianity course eg Alpha or something similar.
Surely this is a good thing?
Tom
--------------------
My allotment blog
Posts: 6473 | From: My Sofa | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
I don't believe in infant baptism as I think it is very important for people to make up their own minds about whether they want to be Christians or not. Baptism symbolises dying to sin and rising to new life which the Reformed type in me wants to say comes by grace but through believing in Jesus. Babies cannot do this. More to the point, I don't really believe in original sin either so I wouldn't have any difficulty in saying that babies really need to repent and believe in the first place anyway, until they get older and start sinning. So, as Duchess once very memorably said, INSTANT HEAVEN for babies.
I eagerly await people to come and slap me down as I am well aware these are just my own views and many onboard would not agree!
I concur with thee SeanD, I concur! hehe. What a surprise! Thx for quoting me but I shamelessly stole that remark from John MacArthur, a semi-famous pastor who has been on the Larry King show since he is a steel-plated-bible-banger. In fact my pastor was youth pastor in his (John MacArthur's) church before he (my pastor) moved up to Redwood City.
I know you are all thrilled to read that.
Back to the OP...instant heaven became a long doc that John MacArthur wrote with verses to support it. I can make it short and sweet and say that:
1) King David did not weep for his baby that died but said 'i will go to the baby' (paraphrase)
King David DID however fall apart when evil son plotting to kill daddy who slept with daddy's comcubine on the roof was wasted.
2) Many argue babies are not able to discern sin yet so the LAW does not apply to them.
INSTANT HEAVEN. there ya go.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
I forgot about the OP: this is debated in Calivnist churches since CALVIN supported infant baptism (somebody shoot me down if I am wrong...but I remember hearing this from somebody at my church).
I myself don't care...I think it matter more what is in YOUR HEART.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
strathclydezero
# 180
|
Posted
We don't choose our parents.
We don't choose our feet size.
We don't choose our first school.
There are many things we don't choose. And does it affect us that much?
Because I'm baptised as an infant does it make me less of a Christian? Does it affect the way in which God views me?
Even the things that we do choose we are limited in choice. In fact it is possible to believe that we never make any choices of our own. For me infant baptism is no more than a symbol of God's unconditional love, tenderness, omnipotence, even grace. None of these qualities we can ever know fully, and we can only express them through symbolic gestures such as this. God is the god who loves us regardless of who we are, what we have done - and he loved us before we knew it. He cared for us before we knew it. And even if we choose to reject him he still loves us and cares for us. There is no other expression of the Christian religion quite like infant baptism.
Adult baptism is a symptom of the democratic society in which we live. Its current incarnation was born out of the protestant movement as society changed to say that we have the ability to choose our own destiny. People are entitled to their own world views and as such adult baptism should be recognised as a valid expression of Christian faith, but in my opinion it lacks a lot of the depth of unspoken meaning that exists within infant baptism.
--------------------
All religions will pass, but this will remain:
simply sitting in a chair and looking in the distance.
V V Rozanov
Posts: 3276 | From: The Near East | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Sean D wrote:
quote:
I don't believe in infant baptism as I think it is very important for people to make up their own minds about whether they want to be Christians or not
But we don't make up our minds in a vacuum. To be honest, I can't say when or even whether I decided to be a Christian. I was baptised as a baby, grew up within the Church and have taken steps in understanding and commitment, but from within being a Christian. God's grace was at work before I could understand or appreciate it.
Ken wrote:
quote:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.
And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.
I'll admit that the second is a problem, but to quote someone (David Watson perhaps or CS Lewis) the right answer to misuse is not disuse but right use.
The first, I am uncomfortable with. But then I see baptism as much or more about God's promises to us than about our declaration. As someone has pointed out confirmation exists (at least partly, although the confirmation is the bishop praying 'Confirm, O Lord, thy servant X with thy Holy Spirit') to fulfil this function. It seems odd to withold the grace of baptism so that they can declare their faith later.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Back to the OP...instant heaven became a long doc that John MacArthur wrote with verses to support it. I can make it short and sweet and say that:
1) King David did not weep for his baby that died but said 'i will go to the baby' (paraphrase)
King David DID however fall apart when evil son plotting to kill daddy who slept with daddy's comcubine on the roof was wasted.
I could just as easily argue that the baby went straight to hell, and King David figured he was going there too since he'd committed adultery and killed a man.
Throughout the Old Testament we see people going to "Sheol", translated with things like "the pit." We don't see people talking about whether they'll go to heaven or hell when they die. There's simply no evidence that David thought the baby was going to heaven and Absalom was going to hell. David said "Would that I had died instead of you" but he didn't add "because I'd've gone to heaven, whereas you went straight to hell."
quote:
2) Many argue babies are not able to discern sin yet so the LAW does not apply to them.
Paul says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." He doesn't say "all who have reached a certain age" or "all who know the difference between right and wrong."
A Church of Christ evangelist I knew once gave one of the best definitions of original sin I've ever heard: "Everyone is born selfish! And most people never grow out of it!" Our culture thinks of children as innocent, but babies cry till they get what they want, or they have to be taught not to. And anybody who thinks children can't be cruel was obviously never in grade school.
Incidentally, in the prayer/creed/confession we Orthodox say before communion, we ask forgiveness for our "voluntary and involuntary trespasses, in word and in deed, in knowledge and in ignorance." We believe that a sin is still a sin even if you didn't realize it at the time, and for that matter even if you don't realize it even now. You don't have to understand sin in order to do it! But you can still receive God's grace.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Sean D wrote:
I don't believe in infant baptism as I think it is very important for people to make up their own minds about whether they want to be Christians or not
You appear to be saying that once somebody is baptised as an infant, they are trapped into being a Christian for the rest of their lives, whether they want to or not. This is absurd. People DO make up their minds about whether they want to be Christians or not, whether they are baptised as infants or not. So this can hardly count as a reason not to baptise infants.
Next?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Ok, David stopped weeping, started eating and resumed normal activities albeit he knew he was going to hell and his baby was there too so he would join him.
Then when older son died, he flipped out since older son too was going to hell.
Yes, this line of reasoning makes perfect sense.
I believe David was a man clearly destined to go to heaven which would turn into another tangent.
I think that Luke 10:16 and other verses say "You reject Jesus, you reject God." A baby is not able to even fathom who Jesus is.
Of course they cry, and wail, demanding things. It is all they know, they can not speak. They are born with a sinful nature but they are born rejecting God? I don't think so. I think it takes age and experience to do that.
BTW, links of MarArthur on Larry King Live in case anyone is interested. Good divisive line up and interesting.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ooops. I apologize for the "Next?". I forgot I was in Purgatory. Spending too much time in Hell lately. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
They are born with a sinful nature but they are born rejecting God? I don't think so. I think it takes age and experience to do that.
So why shouldn't they be baptised?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
They are born with a sinful nature but they are born rejecting God? I don't think so. I think it takes age and experience to do that.
So why shouldn't they be baptised?
I think dedicated is fine...but baptising IMHO is not enough. I myself was baptised as a baby, as was the faith I was born into. But as an adult, I wanted to show the world my joy in finding Jesus.
This issue, in my first post in here, is not high up on my list of things I worry about at night before I go to bed.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.
Why do you consider this important?
quote:
And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.
This leads me to ask of those here who are priests, ministers, etc. who do infant baptism: Do you do infant baptisms for anybody, or only those of believing and practicing parents? And is this by your own decision, or that of a bishop/council/etc. higher up?
In the Church of England, the parish priest is obliged by law to baptise anyone (infant or otherwise) born/living in the Parish.
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I myself was baptised as a baby, as was the faith I was born into. But as an adult, I wanted to show the world my joy in finding Jesus.
Same here and that's just what I did - in the Anglican Church we call it confirmation.
[fixed code]
[ 14. June 2003, 16:02: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
This one always goes around in circles.
If you see baptism sacrementaly - i.e. as primarily God doing something - then it makes perfect sense to baptise infants.
If you see it symbolically - primarily as the baptised person doing something - then it makes more sense to leave till later.
Neither can be proved from the bible (or rather, either can, if you pick your verses right), or by reason, so I'll go for Tradition as the deciding factor.
Baptism brings people into the Church, and I for one can't see any reason why children should be denied membership of the Church.
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid then not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.
I can't quote chapter and verse, but we all know where it comes from.
Do you mean if we withold baptism from kids we are not letting them become Christians or take a role in the church?
Well, I believe that baptism is the way one becomes a Christian, so yes to the first one. That doesn't preclude the second.
--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.
Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lady A
Narnian Lady
# 3126
|
Posted
I grew up in the Lutheran church and was baptized as an infant. Did the confirmation thing for 2 years of study and was confirmed in the church. However, my grandparents who were some of the Godliest people I ever met were Baptist and they don't believe in infant baptism. I struggled for many years over the issue and finally decided to be baptized again. The next week I was in my Lutheran church helping make soup for our open door kitchen and up comes the subject of baptism and one of the people there quoted Luther as saying that if you felt you should be baptised as an adult, you should do it. Following your heart instead of following religion. I was always amazed that in all my years in the Lutheran church I hadn't heard that until after I made that choice. Some people believe that if you do another baptism, you are actually renouncing your infant baptism. I don't think so. If you feel that God is tapping you on the shoulder, go with it.
Posts: 2545 | From: The Lion's Mane, Narnia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
I don't think infant baptism is valid and real.
People should have the chance to choose for themselves as baptism is so important. It's a celebration of our decision to follow and commit ourselves to God. Babies can't make that decision.
I think baptism is a way of witnessing to your faith in Christ, celebrating your death to the old life and rebirth to the new one, and following Jesus' own example.
Also, if we bapise infants, we sabotage their chances of being baptised within their own church community, as denominations like the CofE and CofS, think that if someone wants believers' baptism, they are actually being rebaptised, and this often messes up their relationship with their church and their families.
Confirmation is a much less exciting and celebratory ceremony than baptism (immersion type) and doesn't have the same symbolism.
I don't think baptism is "necessary for salvation" so a child who dies unbaptised is fine.
And I don't think you need to be grown up to choose baptism; five-year-olds may be absolutely clear about belonging to Jesus, as much as fifteen or fifty-year-olds.
I do think a thanksgiving/dedication ceremony should take place so that the parents and the congregation can take on the responsibility of praying for and blessing the baby and encouraging them as they grow.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Also, if we bapise infants, we sabotage their chances of being baptised within their own church community, as denominations like the CofE and CofS, think that if someone wants believers' baptism, they are actually being rebaptised, and this often messes up their relationship with their church and their families.
Does the problem lie with the the church who originally baptised them, or the church that is now saying that baptism was invalid?
quote:
Confirmation is a much less exciting and celebratory ceremony than baptism (immersion type) and doesn't have the same symbolism.
It doesn't have to be - having the Bishop in to lay on hands can be every bit as celebratory, and the 'symbolism' of regularly welcoming new children into the family of God is very special.
quote:
I don't think baptism is "necessary for salvation" so a child who dies unbaptised is fine.
I doubt many people do think baptism is necessary for salvation anymore, but that doesn't mean it isn't still helpful.
quote:
And I don't think you need to be grown up to choose baptism; five-year-olds may be absolutely clear about belonging to Jesus, as much as fifteen or fifty-year-olds.
But will they still feel that was an informed choice when they are 10, or 15, or 20?
quote:
I do think a thanksgiving/dedication ceremony should take place so that the parents and the congregation can take on the responsibility of praying for and blessing the baby and encouraging them as they grow.
So why not go the whole hog, and welcome them into the Church properly, as God ordained?
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
People should have the chance to choose for themselves as baptism is so important. It's a celebration of our decision to follow and commit ourselves to God. Babies can't make that decision.
If you view baptism as a celebration of a decision you've made, then you'd certainly want to wait until after you make the decision to celebrate it.
But what if baptism is the physical act through which one is born into the Kingdom of God? What if going down into the water is the means by which you put to death "the old man" and coming up out of the water is the means by which you are raised from death to life? What if it is in fact the means by which God makes you a Christian? By refusing baptism to a child, you are standing between your child and the Lifegiver. Of course, God can go around you. But why would you make him do so? Why would you not cooperate with him by bringing your child to the source of Life?
If your child has a disease that is killing his body, and you know the cure for that disease, you don't wait until he's old enough to choose the cure for himself. You take your child to the doctor and ask the doctor to treat your child, to save his life.
So why would you wait to bring your child to the Church for baptism?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Sean:
quote:
Does the problem lie with the the church who originally baptised them, or the church that is now saying that baptism was invalid?
IMO, with the parents or denomination who "baptised" them as infants. A church that does believers' baptism doesn't usually force it on the candidate; they have to choose it for themselves, and believe for themselves that it is what God wants them to do.
quote:
It doesn't have to be - having the Bishop in to lay on hands can be every bit as celebratory, and the 'symbolism' of regularly welcoming new children into the family of God is very special.
Baptism by immersion has the special symbolism and actions of death and resurrection and can be quite spectacular. I know a few people who experienced their confirmation as extra special. Mine wasn't - it was very boring compared to my baptism. But that may well have been because of the particular bishop, or because I was regarding it as a formality.
quote:
I doubt many people do think baptism is necessary for salvation anymore, but that doesn't mean it isn't still helpful.
Tangent: more for other thread: how is it helpful?
quote:
But will they still feel that was an informed choice when they are 10, or 15, or 20?
I hope so, but maybe we have to accept some things we choose to do...
quote:
So why not go the whole hog, and welcome them into the Church properly, as God ordained?
I think they have to choose for themselves. I don't think infant baptism is "proper" welcoming.
Back to the OP. Some of my husband's Nepali relatives got involved in the Jesus Only Movement, and they had to be rebaptised in the name of Jesus, instead of Trinitarianly! This strikes me as out of order. I would think that any baptism, into Jesus, would do. Sometimes, people were baptised in our church "in the Name of Jesus", sometimes "in the Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit". The whole context was Trinitarian, though.
I reckon baptism is more about a person's relationship with God than a rules and regulations matter.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
People should have the chance to choose for themselves as baptism is so important. It's a celebration of our decision to follow and commit ourselves to God. Babies can't make that decision.
If you view baptism as a celebration of a decision you've made, then you'd certainly want to wait until after you make the decision to celebrate it.
But what if baptism is the physical act through which one is born into the Kingdom of God? What if going down into the water is the means by which you put to death "the old man" and coming up out of the water is the means by which you are raised from death to life? What if it is in fact the means by which God makes you a Christian? By refusing baptism to a child, you are standing between your child and the Lifegiver. Of course, God can go around you. But why would you make him do so? Why would you not cooperate with him by bringing your child to the source of Life?
If your child has a disease that is killing his body, and you know the cure for that disease, you don't wait until he's old enough to choose the cure for himself. You take your child to the doctor and ask the doctor to treat your child, to save his life.
So why would you wait to bring your child to the Church for baptism?
I wouldn't wait, and I didn't. My children were dedicated as babies and made the decision to be baptised themselves when they were old enough, and after they had made the decision for themselves to follow Christ.
I don't think that the death and life experience happens at the time of baptism - this is where we differ- I think it happens before, and baptism is the symbolic acting out and witness to it.
I would bring my child to the source of life by trying to live out my christian life with them in the family (and regularly repenting of messing up) by teaching them about God and helping them to pray and learn the bible story, taking them to church till they were old enough to decide for themselves... and I think they they and God together in co-operation make them a Christian.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JHG
Shipmate
# 3464
|
Posted
This is a potential dead horse topic, but i thought I'd add my expereince. i was baptised as an infant (Methodist Church). The majority of Christians baptise infants. I grew up in area where the majority practice of Christianity was placed on its head as i was surrounded by Anabaptists growing up. Throughout my childhood i was continually bombarded with the concept that one is not a "real" Christian until they accept the Lord and are baptised at the "age of accountability." Unlike some of the children around me I never submitted to "rebaptism." I cherish my baptism and i am glad i have never known a day in my life when i was not "grafted onto the body of Christ."
Posts: 222 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
I think there are a lot of cultural factors that weigh in here to influence how we see IB practitioners vs. BB practitioners. If I may generalize, while not forgetting the dangers therein: Most of the churches that practice IB (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) are or have been state churches in Christian countries where infant baptism would have been a normal thing at birth whether or not the parents intended to give the child a Christian upbringing.
Most of the churches that practice only BB have tended to be Protestant churches whose orientation is more that of a community than a public utility. (I hope no one bristles at this; I think it's a reasonable way of stating it, and I now belong to one of those "public utility" churches. This isn't a value judgment, but an observation of different sociological orientations.)
Therefore, it wouldn't be surprising if (to make up some numbers for the sake of argument ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ) 80% of those baptized in a BB church stayed in it, while 20% of those baptized as infants in an IB church stayed in it--since many of the parents baptizing their infants in the IB church never had any intention of being faithful members, but were doing this as a rite of passage (instead of a rite of faith).
I think this situation influences people to believe that infant baptism is lifeless and useless. If we restricted our view of infant baptism to only those baptisms where both parents were faithful to their church and fully intended to bring up their child in that church, I suggest that a different picture might emerge.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I see confirmation as just having a time-delay between having the water part and the promises part. As God (on another thread) has been described as being outside time, I don't think that delay matters as much as we like to think it does.
I never had a problem personally with the time delay, although I had to stick up for myself when challenged as a teenager by people who were very determined that all people should have a 'proper' baptism as an adult believer.
When it came to my own children, I was aware of this ambivalence in beliefs and so I compromised: they were baptised at the age of 10 by their request, a few days before being confirmed. It seemed in their case the right thing to do - they are old enough to remember their baptism and took it very seriously, but were technically still children.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JHG:
This is a potential dead horse topic, but i thought I'd add my expereince.....
Aside: Actually JHG, there isn't a dead horse thread about infant compared to believers baptism, which is why a few of us thought we could have a right good slog on this one. Good to hear from you on this one.
To the sacramentalist approach: why couldn't you believe baptism is a sacrament best given/done upon belief? What is there that states this particular sacrament has to happen as soon as possible after birth?
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
What is there that states this particular sacrament has to happen as soon as possible after birth?
2000 years of collected wisdom.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
I'm with Og (1st post) and Mousethief (last post) on this one. In the Roman Catholic Church we have First Communion for older children and confirmations for adults. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
Lordy.
Been there. Done that. Bought the t-shirt. Got the tattoo.
The Offspring was baptized on the Feast of the Epiphany when he was six days old. (Some friends suggested that we name him "Jesus" with the hispanic pronunciation (Hay-soos) in honor or his natal day, but we demurred.) A friend of mine, hearing the story, agreed, laughing. "That would have been the unkindest cut of all," he said.
He made his first communion as a toddler when he became so fascinated with the mechanics of distribution that he was no longer interested in any blessing that didn't include the Meal. He wanted the Cookie, too.
I suppose, given our situation, that there might be some romantic regret in his mother and me that he didn't "come to faith" on his own and asked to be baptized so he could weep when he went forward. But the reality is that there was never a time when he wasn't surrounded by the "great cloud of witness." Consequently, it would be ridiculous if he didn't consider God an "old family friend" who didn't need much of an introduction.
He has said as much to us on several occasions. He told his mother one time that there wasn't a time in his life that he hadn't felt loved by God. There were a handful when he hadn't felt loved by us, but that was another matter entirely....
Early baptism wasn't an easy decision for us. His mother believed that he needed to be of an age of decision so he could understand the blessing that he was receiving, while I pointed out that just about every Christian I knew of any stripe was absolutely clueless about the depth of grace they had received at baptism, so it really made no difference at what point the sacrament was administered.
God bless her. Mrs. tomb chose to defer (I believe she used the biblical word "submit") to me. It was a terrifying moment. Our joint commitment to raising the Offspring in the Church and our promises to God, to each other, and to him were the sort of solemn ones that are impossible to abrogate. And if they failed, there was no one to blame but ourselves.
At eighteen, the Offspring is a level-headed kid. He's just as self-absorbed as any person that age, but he's also active in the parish. No one will convince me that the sacramental character of his baptism and the regular reception of the Eucharist didn't contribute to his formation a lot more than my threats to drown him or tie him up in the basement ever did.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Tomorrow I am baptizing two babies. At each baptism I will preach a short homily which takes up the question of what we're doing when we baptize an infant. Next week (since I drew the short straw at the curates' training day) I get to give an overview of CofE practice and theology of baptism to a bunch of young German pastors and my fellow curates, some of whom are adherents of believers' baptism. I am really grateful for the views expressed in this thread, which have helped me, yet again, clarify things in my own mind. Just one thing: where the heck does Luther say that people who want to be rebaptized should go and do it? It doesn't sound a bit like him.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReVoltaire
Shipmate
# 4351
|
Posted
OK, I’ll weigh in with the Presby view, which is what I ascribe to. Here’s the facts:
The Book of Order states “Children of believers are to be baptized without undue delay, but without undue haste.” It’s a serious commitment, and so while it shouldn’t be put off; it also shouldn’t be done without full consideration.
In response to the objection that infants don’t know that they are being baptized, we believe that “The Baptism of children witnesses to the truth that God's love claims people before they are able to respond in faith.” Book of Order, again The theological basis for this is long and dreary and a whole 'nother thread. (OK, I admit it, I'm just too tired to start looking up scripture )
Baptism is a confession of faith made by parents, and a commitment to raise their child in faith with the help and support of the church. The church then promises to help and guide the child in faith. It signifies the beginning of life in Christ, not its completion, and so the effect of it is seen to be lifelong. It’s not considered a guarantee to heaven, nor is it guaranteed that if a child (or anyone else) dies before being baptized they will not go to heaven. (Predestination ROCKS!) It should never done in private—it is considered a covenant between the church and the family and so should be witnessed and celebrated by all. Although members who were baptized in other churches are accepted without the need to be rebaptised; we don’t baptize children who are not going to be a part of the church, because it wouldn’t honor the commitment made. All baptisms have to be approved by the session of the congregation, and preformed by the pastor. And like the CoE et al., confirmation/membership vows are seen as a personal confession of faith. They are also followed by a commitment from the congregation to share faith with the member.
Just last week, we actually had to turn down a family that attends a different church in town that only performs adult baptisms but wanted their baby baptized. We turned them down kindly, but couldn't do it because the commitment between the parents and the congregation would have been meaningless.
--------------------
"What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posts: 300 | From: Texan in Exile | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
Thinking covenantally about this issue, it seems to me that the pattern in scripture is that children born to 'covenant members' (if I may put it that way) are born into the covenant, and as they grow up may make decisions (in theology or by actions) that take them out of the covenant.
Children born to 'non-covenant members' need to make decisions to enter the covenant.
Also, in 1 Corinthians 10, quote:
1 Cor. 10:1-2 (ESV)
I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, [2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
Paul sees the OT equivalent to baptism as, not circumcision, but the Exodus throught the 'Red Sea'. I'm sure that there were infants who crossed the Red Sea, who were 'baptised' into Moses because of their parents decision to follow Moses.
I thus have no problems with infant baptism.
In regards to non-christian parents fronting up to get their kids 'dunked', it seems to me that it is the baptisers (ie the ministers?) responsibility to make parents aware of what they are doing when they are getting children baptised - a commitment to raise the child so they know the Christian faith and experience and are part of Christian fellowship amd community. A parent who is not serious about their own faith is unlikely to be serious about their child's faith.
And I, like Amos, am curious quote:
where the heck does Luther say that people who want to be rebaptized should go and do it? It doesn't sound a bit like him.
I thought Luther like so many of the 'mainstream reformers' was against re-baptism. I always thought they viewed 'anabaptism'(meaning 'to baptise again') as a heresy?
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Not a Care
Apprentice
# 1813
|
Posted
We all know that there are a lot more factors that go into one's faith than whether or not you were baptized, or even if you were IB'd or BB'd. Like someone else said, baptizm itself does not guarantee you will become a practicing Xian in the future. We know this from experience.
In the tradition I was brought up in, I was taught that baptism was not a physical/"magical" act that secured God's grace....it was a symbol of your belief and choice of accepting it.
In the tradition that I participate in now, an infant is baptized, the family and then the whole church solemnly pledge to commit to raising and supporting that child in whatever way they can, which I see as a positive and effective practice; I can not remember the exact moment I made the "decision..." and that moment is not important to me. It was rather a growth over time, and I probably would not have made it without the support and teaching of my family and church.
Anyone have some insight into the original meaning of baptism? I believe it was a Jewish custom, but the first instance I can think of hearing about it is with John the Baptist..? What did it mean as a Jewish custom, and when/why did it become a sacrament?
--------------------
What did I just say?
Posts: 23 | From: Music City USA | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
OK, I'm going to sound like a hyper-calvinist or Jansenist or Augustimian or whatever, but I've noticed on this thread a lot of talk about our decision and our choice, but little sense of "You did not choose me; I chose you" or "God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world."
I am a big advocate of Christians taking seriously the fact that they a disciples of Christ, and consciously seeking to love and follow him more and more, but I think this needs to be balanced with the fact that all of our choosing of God is founded on God's prior choice of us (I'll leave aside, for the moment, the question of whether and why some are chosen and others not). I'm not exactly sure how this relates to the issue of infant baptism, except that I think advocates of adult baptism don't help their case by turning baptism into something where we do God the favor of becoming his disciple.
Also, while biblical examples of the practice of infant baptism are a bit rare (perhaps even non-existent) there does seem to be lots of examples (at least twelve) of people becoming disciples of Jesus without having any earthly idea of what they are doing. Heck, it's only at the resurrection that Jesus' disciples begin to get a clue as to what they have become involved in. It strikes me that no matter what the age one is baptized, you never really know what you are choosing.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReVoltaire
Shipmate
# 4351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
OK, I'm going to sound like a hyper-calvinist or Jansenist or Augustimian or whatever, but I've noticed on this thread a lot of talk about our decision and our choice, but little sense of "You did not choose me; I chose you" or "God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world."
Hey! That's what I said. Only not so pretty ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posts: 300 | From: Texan in Exile | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
Trying to clarify thinking slightly...
Let us suppose that you have two sets of parents. One set decide to have their child baptised, the other set decides not to.
The two children die.
What happens to the children?
Or, mis-quoting an earlier poster...
Because I'm was baptised as an infant does it make me (more of) a Christian than if I hadn't been? Does it affect the way in which God views me?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Because I'm was baptised as an infant does it make me (more of) a Christian than if I hadn't been? Does it affect the way in which God views me?
No
I was baptised as an infant and confirmed at 12 years old. Although it meant a lot t me then (the confirmation) I lost my faith in my adolescence, coming back to God in my early 20s.
However I see no need to go back and repeat either of the above ceremonies/sacraments, although I broke my part of the promise, God was always faithful to his. Like the prodigal son I found him welcoming me back with open arms.
With our own children, Mrs Asteroid and I have not used the infant baptism rite, using the Anglican "Thanksgiving for the Birth of a Child" rite instead. All three children have grown up Christian and have had adult baptism.
<This is just an opinion> To me those who insist on rebaptism are saying that God does not keep his promises. </opinion>
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.
That's why the CofE has confirmation - where you confirm the vows made on your behalf by your parents yourself.
Er, no.
At Confirmation the Bishops confirms your Baptism.
Other stuff may happen as well, but that is the essence of Confirmation.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.
That's why the CofE has confirmation - where you confirm the vows made on your behalf by your parents yourself.
Er, no.
At Confirmation the Bishops confirms your Baptism.
Other stuff may happen as well, but that is the essence of Confirmation.
I thought it was the Holy Ghost doing the confirming, but there you go.
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Trying to clarify thinking slightly...
Let us suppose that you have two sets of parents. One set decide to have their child baptised, the other set decides not to.
The two children die.
What happens to the children?
That's God's call, not ours.
Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?
I do believe that the sacraments are a means by which God helps us to be what he wants us to be. I don't know about you, but I need all the help I can get, and would like the same for my children, if and when He blesses us with any.
[fixed code]
[ 14. June 2003, 16:11: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReVoltaire
Shipmate
# 4351
|
Posted
What Sean said. ![[Love]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
"What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posts: 300 | From: Texan in Exile | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean:
Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?
But that would turn the sacraments into some sort of magic.
Abracadabra, you're saved.
I don't think anyone with a real faith believes that. But there is a problem with those of the margins of Christianity who see the rites as a magic formula.
[fixed code]
[ 14. June 2003, 16:11: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
