Wednesday, 11 May 2011
-
Infant or Adult Baptism: Don't Miss the Point
A few years ago, while moving some stuff out of storage, I found a red, felt banner with white, felt lettering that said, "JAMES IS A CHILD OF GOD". Underneath, it said "JANUARY 25 1987". Also on the banner, in white felt, is a dove, representing the holy spirit, and coming from the dove, drops of water which representsbaptism. I got this when I was baptized at a mere 6 months of age in a Lutheran church.When I was in the 2nd grade, my family started going to a United Methodist church, where they also believe in pedobaptism (child's baptism or infant baptism). We didn't talk much about baptism in my church because, normally, if you weren't baptized as a baby, you were baptized around the time of confirmation. It was rare to see an adult being baptized.
I always saw something special when parents would take their babies to get baptized. There was normally a glow to what was going on. It kept a smile on my face, that's for sure, but as I was getting older, I began to question the theology behind pedobaptism. Is it ok for a baby to get baptized in the name of Christ since the baby doesn't really know what it means to follow Christ? Since it takes a personal choice to follow Christ, shouldn't it be a personal choice to be baptized?
It took me awhile to gather my thoughts to come up with what is now, my stance on baptism.
The first thing I thought about is baptism is a sacrament- meaning, it is a gift from God to man. A "grace", if you will. I don't believe that a person has the right to deny God's grace (in any form) to anybody. No one deserves the grace of God. It's gifted to us. Surely, it can't be deserved, then it could be gifted to those who don't understand it, right?
I think so. Who fully understands the commitment made to Christ when one first decides to be a Christian? In addition, if one doesn't fully understand what it means to be a Christian, then one doesn't fully understand his baptism. If an
average person accepting Christ does not understand his baptism in full, what difference would it make if he was baptized as a baby? A choice? I'm not so sure. Many people choose to accept Christ and become baptized, only to later apostatize.
In the UMC, we baptize infants knowing full well that they may step away from the Church when they get older, just like anybody could. However, the Church realizes that the responsibility of living the faith isn't on the individual who was baptized alone, but on the family who had the individual baptized, as well as the Church. When we baptize, we make an oath to the Church that we will help raise the child to know God, to know Christ, to know the Church, and to be supportive. If the Church follows through with this oath, the chance that those who were baptized would later apostatize is really slim. Also, because a baby doesn't make the choice to be baptized, it becomes a choice later, during confirmation. It is during confirmation when one confirms his or her baptism. One has the choice to say, "Yes! I am a believer and I believe in my baptism!"
In short, my pastor baptizes no one. My church baptizes no one. Baptism is a gift from God. The pastor is simply the tool God uses to baptize. Because it is God who baptizes, who am I to have the right to deny that grace to anyone, including an infant? I know in my baptism, I g
ot a full measure of God's grace. I know that because I remember it; not mentally, but spiritually and emotionally. I see my baptism present in my life. My sins are washed away. I've emerged from the waters into a covenant with God... and it's been like that my entire life. That banner I got from my baptism... I keep it in my room because it's a great reminder.
What are your thoughts on pedobaptism (baptism of infants) and credobaptism (believer's baptism)?
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: jmallory@xanga
- Name: Jimmy
- Location: Dayton, Ohio, United States
- About Me: Jesus is alive and working in me. I'm just trying to manifest his glory.
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 55 Views: 0 34018 Comments: 0 785 View all posts by jmallory@xanga
Comments (19)
Such a good post!
My husband and I have decided to not baptize our son when he's born in July, but instead do a Dedication which is basically a ceremony and a little party (similar to what you'd have at a baptizism I guess) just saying that we're going to do our best as parents to raise Gryffen (our son) in accordance to God's word, etc. I wasn't baptized when I was baby and really enjoyed the experience I had with it in high school when I was ready to accept what being baptized truly meant and that's what I'd like for our son :)
Here's a link on Baby Dedications: http://christianity.about.com/od/babydedication/f/babydedication.htm
I kinda struggle with that thought. I was baptized when I was 7 (which is, to me, practically a baby) and I wonder if that was an adequate baptism for me. I mean, I was 7. I was more excited about being up in front of the whole church than I was about the actual process. I didn't really understand what it meant, I was too young.
At the same time, by the time I was baptized I had no doubt of God or Jesus. There was no particular moment when I accepted Jesus, but I always knew and trusted him.If I had children, I don't think I would baptize them as a baby (I'm baptist, anyway, we don't really do that) but I would definitely have a dedication with my church.
Infants have been baptized by the Church for centuries and centuries...
Baptism is a picture that you have chosen to publicly announce that you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior. A baby does not understand what the plan of salvation is, only those who can come to the understanding of sin and God could get baptized.
It does not wash sin away, for Jesus washes sins away. It is when you have accepted Jesus and his shedding of blood for the remission of sins, that you take the first step as a follower of Christ to announce that you want to be a serious Christian and get baptized. That is baptism. Babies cannot understand that concept.It's just a communal rite, to show others what group you've joined. Any spiritual benefit one has is due to one's walk in life, not to what ritual one's has preformed or how, or indeed, what regimental tie one wears. Rituals don't have spiritual benefit, although they can have a psychological benefit, which is reason enough to do it, I suppose.
I do have a support for infant baptism. Hesistantly, I say that.
I think I do identify myself as one who holds to Covenant Theology. The comparison between believer's baptism and pedobaptism is irrelevant then because baptism does not require people to have knowledge, but more showing the coming of the Holy Spirit on a person's life.
That's such a cute poster! Though, when I see that poster, I kind of cringe with what certainty they made that with. No one can ever be sure, but only continually seek God and be filled with the Holy Spirit.
My beliefs on infant/child baptism is that it has to be the baptized individual's choice to be baptized, not the parent's. We are called to become baptized after we've accepted Christ to share the fact that you've accepted Christ with fellow believers.
Some scriptural reasons why I believe this would be: Acts 2:41, Act 8:12, 36, 37, Acts 10: 43, 44, 47. If you read Acts 16: 30-34, a jailer asked Paul what he must do to be saved. He was told to believe in Christ and that he would be saved. It never mentioned a need for baptism for salvation. This is because this is something that is not required for salvation but we are called to do this afterward as demonstration of our choice to become saved as well as symbolism to identify the Christian with Christ's death, burial & resurrection.
So in short, I only agree with baby/child dedication and not with baby/child baptism before that child is able to understand the basics of salvation and chooses to accept Christ as his/her personal savior. All we can do as parents is promise to raise our children to follow Christ. We can't accept Christ for them and therefore shouldn't be baptizing them. Not to mention - baptism is supposed to be a dunking to symbolize the burial & resurrection parts of Christ's sacrifice that resulted in our salvation. JMHO.
maybe my understanding of Baptism is a little off.. but for an infant to be baptized, would they not have to be fully submerged under water and brought back up, the same way its done with adults? Why then is christening (baby dedication with the sprinkling of water on the head) called baptism?
This is something I have always wondered about.. I was christened as an infant and baptized when I was 13.
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - As have adults - back to the time of John the Baptist. Jesus himself was baptized as an adult. That is not to say I am against infant baptism, but based on this post (as it is not a tradition I am as familiar with), it seems the focus of the baptism is a bit different.
OP - Given that I see baptism (to one's relationship with Christ) as comparable to a wedding ceremony (to a marriage,) I subscribe to the tradition of credobaptism. Certainly, we'll never fully understand the grace of God, but some level of knowledge is important. After all, the decision to follow Christ is a serious one. The baptism is a public declaration of said decision.
I rejct infant baptism, because I reject the notion that Baptism is a sacrament. I believe that baptism is an ordinance. An ordinance is different, because it does not convey grace. I received grace when I accepted Jesus. I was sealed by the Holy Spirit, and grafted into the family of God. We know that it is salvation that gives us grace and not baptism, because the thief on the cross, was not baptized, but Jesus still told him that they would be in Paradise together.
If salvation causes us to be saved, to be sealed by the Holy Spirit, to be protected by God, and that nothing on heaven and earth could separate us from the love of God,
Then either, Baptism does not convey grace, or, Baptism does convey grace, and we somehow lost it and it needed to be replaced. if we can lose grace, then we would need to continue to replace that which we lost, and if we lost grace, then we are not protected and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
I am going to go with baptism does not convey grace, and that I got God's grace when I was saved, and that God is strong enough to watch over and protect me.
I haven't read about baptism in the Bible for a long time. It is my personal opinion that people born into Christianity do not need baptism. I think it had its place 2,000 years ago where Jews had to change their whole way of thinking to believe Jesus was the son of God. Or Gentiles converted to the new religion of Christianity. So, either baby, child, adult or on a death bed, I don't think it really matters to God when it is done or whether it is done.
The Bible only baptizes believers; those who have made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Let's do the same.
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - This started because they were killing off babies centuries ago, so pedobaptism is merely something humans came up with and although it doesn't necessarily go against the Bible, it's still not exactly correct because to be baptized truly, you must first learn about what Christ has done for you and accept Christ into your heart, which of course included his resurrection and then you can be baptized by the pastor. Pedobaptism has become more of a tradition or cultural thing in most "denominations" of churches, although I don't really have high regards within the idea of denominations itself for it you think of it as denomination and seperate everything, it won't be a relationship between you and God anymore, but merely a religion like any other, but that's another discussion =P But yes, in my belief, as you would have no choice or opinions when you're a baby, your parents will decide whether you get baptized or not, but the baby will not have much value in that nevertheless, therefore, if you are a parent, I think the best thing to do even if you were influenced by your peers to give your baby baptism when they were baby is to teach them about Christ and have them baptized when they're ready.
Since we are on the topic of baptism, I just want to say one more thing. Baptism itself has no value. Baptism is more of a symbolic event where you're announcing or publicizing that you've truly become one with Christ, but it does not give you key to heaven or whatnot if you get baptized without accepting Christ. That would be like getting into water as a sinner and just coming out soaked and wet. Baptism symbolizes you getting in the water where you would need to hold your breath signifying death like Christ, then coming back out like his resurrection.
@iLoveYeaeunee@xanga - So you think that the same Lord who said, "Let the little children come to me," after many had brought their children to Him so that He could bless them and touch them, would say, "But wait until they can start to understand what is going on first?" And if the spiritual decision of our first parents (Adam and Eve) to sin affects us to this day, don't you think that a spiritual decision made by our own parents (deciding to have us baptized) could also affect us, though this time for the better? And what of people who, through no fault of their own, never have the cognitive capacity to understand Christ enough to desire baptism for themselves; are they forever outside of His Body? Basically, is baptism only the mentally competent?
I also question your claim of a connection between infanticide and the baptism of infants. St. Ireneus, for example, wrote around the year 190 AD that "Christ came to save all who through Him are born again unto God; infants and children, boys and youths, and aged persons." More importantly I think St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote in 251 AD in response to those who thought that baptism ought to be withheld from infants and children until a more suitable age, "In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. Rather, we judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born."Don't you think that if one were absolutely NOT to baptize infants and children, this would have been quite explicit? And don't you think being able to baptize an infant even more beautifully illustrates the utter, undeserved grace that God gives us? After all, God blessed those infants the Jewish people brought for circumcision, not because of anything the infants did but because of the dedication of their parents; did Mary and Joseph do wrong in bringing Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to the temple to be circumcised? After all, they did make a pretty life-altering decision on His behalf, without His permission.
As for the second portion of your comment, I'm so sorry to hear this! After all the thousands of people who have been brutally martyred because they desired baptism, and you believe baptism has no value? Why would Christ and His apostles put such a heavy emphasis on the importance of baptism if it were only symbolic? If it were symbolic, why were some people in the Book of Acts, who had only received "the baptism of John" baptized again in the name of Jesus (Acts 19:3-5)? If it were only a symbol it would not have to be repeated. If it were purely symbolic then, frankly, it is worth very little at all, and a verse like Mark 16:16 ought to be thrown out altogether!
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - Does it say in the Bible that it's okay to sprinkle water on infants to save them? No, that was merely what humans came up with, specifically due to the circumstances back then, but no circumstance give humans any privilege or power to change the word of God, whether it's to add or subtract a content according to every dire circumstance. This is one of the reasons why Catholics with Pope being that person who does so according to his will is fraud along with several other reasons. God is good, fair, and holy regardless of human's perception of what's fair and whatnot, even if it's helpless babies that have yet to develop any intellects, however, he's still a sinner whether he was just born an hour ago or whether he's a month old and that gives God the right to give death. This is fair and what's more fair is that we are forever separated from God, but He gives us a chance to connect and be with Him again through Christ. Tell me, which god do you believe in? God who's of the Bible or this idol imagery of God that humans have made up with human logic, tradition, culture, or imaginations according to their own liking like Pope does?
Also, I never said baptism is completely pointless. I'm simply stating the fact that baptism isn't what saves you, but the fact that you've come to realize Christ and what he has done for you and accept him truly. This is why baptism is more of a ceremonial event where it's symbolic because first Christ was baptized and we wish to live like him as Christians, thus why we're called Christians, and secondly because it symbolizes Christ's death and resurrection. Those who do not know die a sinner no doubt and because of this, you may say it's not fair because it's not their fault for some countries do not allow word of God. Nevertheless, he died a sinner in God's eyes for he wasn't saved and died as a sinner and no matter what humans do to "relieve" their mental stress or worried thoughts, the fact is that they will be judged even if they were to be baptized or sprinkled, not that sprinkle is mentioned anywhere in the Bible. In Matthew 3:16, it reads As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went UP OUT OF THE WATER, which of course means he wasn't sprinkled, but actually went in the water and many other verses where if you have some common sense while reading, you'd definitely catch that like the original word "baptismo" it means submersion under water. It may be cruel, but who are you to decide? That isn't for you, other pastors or bishops, researchers and of course pope to decide, but God and God's alone. You cannot add your own human instictive moral, ethics, logic, or thoughts to alter his words and when you've done that, like other corrupted sacts and cults, you're no longer in sync with our real God, but an empty idol full of fake and corruption that is only "holy" in your eyes. Follow the Bible, not human historic events, circumstances, cultures and logics.
@iLoveYeaeunee@xanga - Does it prohibit the baptizing of infants? One would think that were such a prohibition as important as many make it, the Bible would be quite explicit. For example, "Go and baptize all nations" might instead say, "Go and baptize all who can confess their belief in me," or the many instances in Acts when whole households were baptized it might say, "the whole household save for the infants and children," or "they baptized all the adults of the household." Yet there is no such instruction, so while the Bible does not say "yes, baptize the babies" neither does it tell us not to. As far as sprinkling/pouring versus immersion, I will touch on that later.
You raise the issue of the Pope, but I think you misunderstand the role of the Pope in the Catholic Church. You seem to think that he is some kind of dictator that can tell us what to do and what to believe whenever he wants? This is a common misconception and is completely erroneous. I will not deny, however, that in the past there have been popes that have abused the powers of their office, especially when they were not only spiritual leaders but secular leaders as well. But a Pope is as much a sinner as the rest of us; in fact our current Pope goes to confession once a week! But we should be careful not to criticize the office because of the man who carries it out; it would be like trashing the office of president simply because Richard Nixon was a terrible man for the job.
I also agree with your beliefs regarding God's justice; God never does anything unjust. Even an infant is born a sinner, this is true; this is one reason why we believe that they are just as in need of baptism as an adult, since baptism is for sinners.
Which God do I believe in? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, God the Father of God the Son, the God of the Holy Spirit, the God that created me and saves me. I absolutely believe in the God of the Bible and not some idolatrous image that "humans have made up with human logic, tradition, culture or imagination according to their own liking like the Pope does." Firstly, it would be good for you to recall that the Bible was written, preserved, collected and passed down by human beings though it was inspired by God, absolutely. Are you aware as well that much of the New Testament as well was written decades after the death of Christ and many of the apostles and often not by "Mark," "Luke," or whoever else a particular book or letter was attributed to? I mention this only to point out that the Bible itself arose out of the oral tradition of the early Church; the Gospel was passed on by word-of-mouth until someone wrote them down for preservation and circulation. The Bible, while again being inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit of God Himself, emerged FROM human tradition and is written by human beings whose gifts and talents (including their imaginations!) were used by God to convey the message of His love to those who would hear it even thousands of years later. As far as your accusation that the Pope just makes up stuff about God, I find it pretty unfounded though I would be open to hearing your argument for it. You might, however, surprisingly enjoy our current pope's two volume work on "Jesus of Nazareth." If you'd like to talk more about the Pope or have questions, please feel free to message me any time.
Moving on to the second part of your comment, I did not mean to say that baptism is what saves you, but rather Christ *through* baptism. Can you really say that any person is capable of fully comprehending what it is that Christ has done for them or can fully grasp who He is? It seems to me that if such were the criteria, no one could be baptized. Were it purely symbolic, I am doubtful Christ would have made it seem like such an important thing, irregardless of how meaningful a symbol it might be. Was the Passover, for example, purely a symbolic meal, or did it actually *do* something? I would argue the latter, for remember that those in Egypt who did not sacrifice the lamb, put the blood on the doorpost and lintel, celebrate the meal and, finally and crucially, EAT the lamb, lost their first-born to the Angel of Death. Baptism, likewise, is no mere symbol, else it would not be so prominent in the New Testament.
As to your impassioned argument that sprinkling is not a valid way to baptize, I understand that you are taking a literal interpretation of Scripture here. I would also point out that if only baptisms of immersion are valid, then a vast majority of Christians from today and back for centuries were not "really" baptized, possibly not even the founders of your own denomination (if your founding was long enough ago) and it is even possible, considering the tradition of sprinkling (though even today this is quite rare as a primary form of baptism) or pouring (far more common) is quite ancient, it may even be that some of those who wrote parts of the New Testament were not baptized; should you, then, be finding their words trustworthy? Don't you think it is a bit pharisaic to hold immersion at so high and staunch a regard when it is water that is the important symbol here, and not necessarily its application? After all, Paul writes about the passing through the Red Sea as a foreshadowing of Baptism; were the people of God immersed, or did they even get wet? And do any of the Gospels, Acts or letters indicate which of the apostles themselves were baptized, or do we just assume they were? Finally, on this topic, I would add that if you are holding immersion in such great importance because "this was the way Jesus was baptized" I should also point out that He was baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist; were you?
Touching then on your final sentence, advising that I "follow the Bible, not human historic events, circumstances, cultures and logics," I would reiterate in so many words my earlier point that the Bible itself is a written account (again, inspired by God and containing His Holy Word!) of God's action and presence in human historic events (the birth of Christ was a human, historic event, as well as His death and resurrection!), circumstances, (remember that Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to register for Caesar's census, or that Paul ran into so much trouble from the Roman Empire?), cultures (remember Paul's difficulty evangelizing to the pagans in Galatia--who were of Gaulish descent--or even those in Athens? And did not the Jewish people have their own culture of which Jesus was a part? He was a rabbi after all!), and logics (Paul is famous for his logic, for example in Romans 6:8 "If we have died in Christ, we believe that we are also to live with him." This is a basic logical statement: if A, then B).
This is all because Jesus Christ is not JUST God and not JUST man, but fully and equally both. He is Incarnate, and so is the Bible; it is not JUST the Word of the God and is not JUST the word of men, but it is the Incarnate Word, the joining of both God and man, God speaking to us through human voice, imagination, witness and testimony. He did not write it with His own hand as He did the Ten Commandments, for example.
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - if all Christians were as properly schooled in the theology of baptism as you are, the whole controversy would become almost moot. But both sides get hung up on the form and neglect the substance. The sola scripture saints are proud of distancing themselves from the Fathers. Everyone else wants to be inclusive. And so the Patristic wisdom just sits there, neglected. At least that's my take.
@wrybreadspread@xanga - I haven't even been schooled formally yet; this is just what I've learned so far from the catechism, reading some of the Fathers and various saints, Scripture and personal prayer. Goodness knows what more I have to learn yet! But I try to bring what treasure and wisdom I can from the Fathers and other sources of Sacred Tradition since when one takes a sola scriptura approach, so much is discarded, disregarded or simply unknown.
That and I think it sad that the same people who uphold the examples of great Christians like St. Francis of Assisi, Bl. Pope John Paul II, Bl. Theresa of Calcutta and others would one the other hand denounce infant baptism, forgetting the whole time that if infant baptism is erroneous, than so many of our saints--who were baptized as infants--were never therefore baptized. Since Christ says that baptism is necessary for salvation, then to doubt infant baptism is to doubt the salvation of some of the greatest Christians (and, frankly, human beings!) that have ever lived!
Most Christians have simply made baptism another work that must be performed in the right manner, at the right age, with the right ideas about Jesus and God and salvation in order to more or less force God to accept them.
They imagine by their own spiritual astuteness and just plain Christian smarts that they have figured out how to win God's favor. And then year after year after year they brag to anyone who will listen about how wonderful it was they accepted Jesus--not that Christ accepted them but that they accepted Christ and that they are the ones who should be praised for being holy and smart and insightful about how to win the grace of God.
Yes, they think they can earn the grace of God--they can earn the gift of salvation by right works of believing and baptizing.