Baptism part 2
Well, we got some input on baptism. Now I am curious to hear people's thoughts on infant baptism. I'll welcome comments from all traditions on this. I'll share my thoughts in a comment at some future day.
posted by Aaron Perry at
2:42 PM
22 Comments:
Well, if one is a Wesleyan, one is obliged by the other inspired Word to do it, no? Which, me thinks, puts the Southern Baptist Wesleyans who write in this space in a bit of a pickle. But what do I know from pickles?
Me? I think it is a good thing, a holy sacrament, a sign and means of grace.
This belief has very practical consequences: Calvin (great name, eh?) was welcomed into the visible family of God at the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord in 2002. His sister Sara was similarly incorporated into the community of Christ at the Easter Vigil of 2004. Lord willing, their brother, Hugh (as in Latimer and/or Horner, but not Hefner)will visibly share in the death and resurrection of his Lord on the Feast of All Saints this year.
On a related note, what's the difference between baptismal regeneration and the sinner's prayer? The former is found in the Bible (see Romans 6).
Tim--who is definitely not crusty when he talks about his kids and Jesus' love for them.
From all of my understanding Baptism is an outward expresssion of our faith. An excercise in which we aknowledge our decision to follow Christ and identify with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
I guess I don't understand then what the purpose of an infant batism would be. Anyone care to explain it to me, and reference any Biblical evidence of it? (outside of the 'entire family' batism passage)
Be nice, I seriously don't understand it.....
I can't recall one example of infant baptism in Scripture. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I thin infant baptism is very, very wrong. There is no way I'm letting some pastor hold my baby under water int the Saint John river. It's just not safe!!!
On a more serious but not particularly theological note I'm very glad that i was able to choose and am able to remember my baptism.
AP knows my anabaptist leanings
first, part of the case for infant baptism, k-dawg, is of course its reference to the whole family being baptized--"households" which included slaves, children, women (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16).
second, this new marker of baptism, as opposed to circumcision, is what incorporates one into the community of God. children didn't have much say in circumcision, either. (see Paul's connection of circumcision and baptism in Col 2.10-13). the act of baptism is as much for the inclusion into the community of the church than to publically declare one's allegiance to Christ--though, of course, that is part of it--and by no means are they separate. asking how a child can declare their allegiance is fair. and the response is that it is a covenantal act between parents and God. just as the parents are entrusting this child to the work of God in the church, so they are expecting God to do the inner work of Spirit baptism in the child. i think if we did more laying on of hands to signify and effect sealing of the Spirit on believers as they got older, then infant baptism would be better accepted in some circles.
those are two Scriptural evidences for infant baptism. it has a long tradition in the church. interestingly, Tertullian suggested that baptism be delayed for infants and unmarried people, though he believed in baptismal regeneration. but even then it was not on Scriptural grounds he argued against it, but practical ones--not understanding hte commitment made. but even then he didn't deny it in every case.
because baptism is a community act, i think it depends on the setting and tradition in which a family finds itself. i have nothing against infant baptism and, like aj, am rather pleased to remember my own. (oliver o'donovan, I THINK, makes a similar argument, but i cannot find it at the moment.) but i think the vehemence against it in some circles is problematic in that it is a symptom of the individualization of the act and an underemphasis on it being a means of grace.
Anybody interested is welcome to a sermon I preached when a baby in our congregation was baptized in 2001. You can get my e-mail address from AP.
CG
Perhaps if we were baptized as an infant we would see the ratification of that when we are saved as an adult or teen or at any age for that matter. What is baptism? That seems to be the question. In the gospels we see it often associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit. No, I'm not going to argue dispensations. Could a child receive the HS as associated in the gospels? Yes, but we wouldn't be able to see its expression until the child matured. Perhaps the quandry lies in the definition. As Wesleyans we use the same "letter" of the law but a different "spirit". We use dedications and baptisms for infants and the sequence of events is similar, but differing liturgy. It clearly is an important sacrament that can be used effectively in expressing the idea of the church being wholistic in thinking of everyone as one body.
For the record the wesleyan church does allow for infant baptisim.
yeah, this is what CG was getting at with "Well, if one is a Wesleyan, one is obliged by the other inspired Word to do it, no?"
on a serious note, have i found the discipline handy since becoming a minister!
We allow for it but I have as yet done one. Dedication, dedication, dedication, that's where it is at.
that is exactly the underlying issue i'm concerned with, kirk. why is infant baptism on the outs (in some regions) of The Wesleyan Church? my concern is a loss of its sacramental nature and communal emphasis. i would like to see regional stats on infant baptism to see where it is more/less common.
Hmmm. Interesting. As a theology student, I know i'm supposed to have a strong opinon on this matter, but I usually just think of baptism in terms of "what would be the better experience for this soul in this situation?" I personally had a tramatic baptism.-- the timing of my baptism was the cause of a huge painful rift between the generations in my family. ironically, if i had been baptized as an infant, rather than as six year old, i would have experienced far more community (and thereby 'Christ') in my life growing up. also, the old women wouldn't have gossipped pejoritively about my "unbaptizedness" in the church hallways.
but, I recall that the Wesleyan Sanhedrin I met with from the midwest expected me to be all about infant dedication. clearly infant baptism was taboo to them.
thanks for sharing, jo. definitely a unique position you were in.
yeah, i realize you all didnt' need to know that, but it does illustrate that the family/social context of the baptizee should maybe be considered as well.
that, or i was just being cantankerous.
The Atlantic District of the Wesleyan Church cannot "lose" the sacrament of infant baptism, because it never "had" it. Remember the original name of the denomination that became the A.D. of the W. C.: Reformed Baptist. So, in a sense, they are being true to their history in not engaging in this pracice; on the other hand, they are not being true to the wider history of their own denomination by remaining blind to it.
Personally speaking, I am convinced that the more and the sooner babies are dunked in the Saint JOhn River at Beulah Camp, the better. Then maybe, these dear folks will come to understand what a Wesley-an (which is to say, almost Reformed) doctrine of previenient grace really is and stop being Pelagian.
Ok. I'm back to being crusty.
CG
Oh yeah and just to clarify the above, Reformed in the first paragraph means "kicked out of and/or left (depends on who's telling the story) the Baptist Churches of Atlantic Canada (haven't a clue what the right name is) over entire sanctification." Whereas Reformed in the second paragraph means (much more simply) "Calvinist."
This unfortunate nomenclature and history leads to the following sentence being true: "To be Reformed, one cannot be Reformed." Ha.
CG
Crusty - Free Christian Baptists is the group you are looking for. While I would say there is some truth to what you are saying but I don't think the RB roots really trickle down to the congregation. i would be suprised if 1 in 10 people in my church would even know if the phrase "we came from the RB's" is true.
General - While i don't see a problem with infant baptism I am yet to hear a compelling case as to why it is better than "beleivers baptisim".
I wasn't just randomly venting up above. I do think the social effects of the baptism on the community members are important. I think that many people get all in a tizzy because they don't understand the why/benefits of doing it one way or the other. If we could all just focus on the positive aspects of each kind of baptism instead of what each is lacking maybe families and churches denominations (!) would be more united rather than wallowing in dissention over this sacrament--which can pretty much take away the joy for all involved. seems to me that's what Jesus would do. there are pressing things to worry about: the poor, other injustice, etc. it's a sacrament, not a doctrine, ya know? what one believes about the proper WAY to baptize is a minor issue.
or maybe i'm wrong? why is it so important to come to a consensus? why is it so important that each church community baptise in the same way so long as all are being baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and HOly Spirit?
AJ:
That you cast the problem as an "either/or" reflects precisely the problem, i.e., the need to overcome a mindset bequeathed by a history; not overcoming the history itself. One can have the mindset without knowing the history, but to overcome the mindset, one needs to be made aware of the history at least. (Thanks, Sam Craig, for that nugget).
I find it exceedingly odd, e.g., that you can say that you have never found a good argument for paedobaptism while you are a minister in a church that is supposed to practice it. This, imo, shows a deep failure in ministerial training from the DS level down. A failure, again imo, rooted in the Baptist history of this district in the denomination.
I emphasize: there's nothing wrong with being a Baptist. Some of my friends are Baptists (;). There's something wrong with being ignorant of or slamming a practice that your demonination supposedly embraces. (Not saying that that's true of you directly).
For paedobaptists, believers' baptism is and always has been "the norm." The baptism of the children of believers is an exceptional practice developed out of the NT theology of baptism (Romans 6 is the classic passage) because the Lord has yet to return. It is an attempt to respond to a question the NT does not ask, but does gives guidelines toward answering, namely, what do we to with these kids now that Jesus hasn't come back as quickly as we thought. And if you want a practice that has no grounds in Scripture either formally or materially, it's dedication. Definitely not where it's at Kirk.
That paedobaptism became the usual mode of baptism in Christendom is, imo, a testimony to the apostles and martyrs who converted Europe from paganism(s) to Christ with a degree of thoroughness that is unmatched. So, three Cheers for Constantine and Charlemagne, without whom, we'd all be worshipping oak trees and killing our kids in swamps so that we could have a good harvest. But that's a story for another day.
Thus, a Roman Catholic (all the way up the line to the Pope) will accept your baptism at Beulah as valid. Some Wesleyans on this list, however, would not accept the Pope's as valid both in form (he was sprinkled) and timing (as an infant). Oh the irony.
CG
they would, however, share communion with him. the irony continues.
also, CG, how did Peter Leithart get your sign in info?? :D
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home