Paedobaptism

[McCulloch]

Question for debate, "Is the baptism of babies and children justified?"

There are no instructions or examples of the baptism of babies or children in the Bible, yet many Christian churches (Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist and others) perform baptism on babies. Why?

Other Christian churches (Baptist, Anabaptist, Restoration, Mormon, Pentecostal, Orthodox and others) will only baptize those who can themselves profess belief.

Can either practice be taught biblically? Should one or the other side of this division between Christians give up their practice for the sake of Christian unity?

[kayky]

Do you think unbaptised children should be excluded?

I personally have no problem with anyone partaking who wants to. But I've never been to a church where at least baptism wasn't required. So this is a new concept to me.

There is no baptism at a confirmation unless we are dealing with a convert. Then both can occur at the same time.

Yup, I know - my sister was baptised as an adult in a church (ELCA) which believed in infant baptism. The pastor is a really nice guy, loving, affirming, could give great sermons... but we kind of chuckled when he had her baptised and then confirmed - repeating the same liturgy in each instance. My parents ribbed him good-naturedly about the absurdity of it afterward - 'we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge two baptisms for the remission of sins', &c.
I had been baptised at the same church two years before, by a different pastor, who treated my baptism no differently than my classmates' confirmations.

Every church has their own way of doing things, I suppose. In the Brethren church (my former mother-in-law's denomination), for example, you have to get dunked three times--once for each person of the Trinity.

Yet there are instances in the New Testament when entire households were baptized. It does not say that the children were excluded.

That's fine. It's not the infant baptism itself that I object to so much as the domineering theology and power politics that ended up snowballing onto it.

Well, yes. There's a lot of things about Church history that do not muster a great deal of pride.

[TXatheist]

It's impossible to say what the child is experiencing. Children, I think, are naturally close to God.

If children are naturally close to god, and god actually plays a part in this ritual, wouldn't this be a comforting, spiritual experience for the baby? What does it mean when a child cries throughout the experience? Why doesn't god comfort the baby? Isn't there actually no sign that anything spiritual is happening?

But when I say it can be a spiritual experience for the congregation, I'm not talking about "pleasing" people.

It seems to me that you use the term spiritual very casually in the way that a music concert or drug trip can be a spiritual experience rather than asserting that the holy spirit is definitely present and doing something. You even state that the baptism can be a spiritual experience for the congregation. Shouldn't it consistently be either spiritual or not spiritual? Are there successful baptisms and unsuccessful ones? Does the holy spirit sometimes show up and sometimes not?

[kayky]

If children are naturally close to god, and god actually plays a part in this ritual, wouldn't this be a comforting, spiritual experience for the baby? What does it mean when a child cries throughout the experience? Why doesn't god comfort the baby? Isn't there actually no sign that anything spiritual is happening?

I think it is impossible to say what a baby is experiencing. But I can say that I do not believe in an anthropomorphic god that "comforts" people.

But when I say it can be a spiritual experience for the congregation, I'm not talking about "pleasing" people.

It seems to me that you use the term spiritual very casually in the way that a music concert or drug trip can be a spiritual experience rather than asserting that the holy spirit is definitely present and doing something. You even state that the baptism can be a spiritual experience for the congregation. Shouldn't it consistently be either spiritual or not spiritual? Are there successful baptisms and unsuccessful ones? Does the holy spirit sometimes show up and sometimes not?

I don't believe in the Holy Spirit. An individual is either accessing this reality or not.