Paedobaptism

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:54 am

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 · Post by **kayky** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:29 pm

kayky wrote:In the Episcopal church, we baptize infants to welcome them as full members of the church and enable them to partake of the eucharist as they grow up in the church.

Seijun wrote:I do not understand what good it does to baptize a baby who has no idea what is going on. Isn't baptism only meaningful when it is voluntary and desired by the one being baptized? It seems to me that the baptism of an infant is for the benefit of the parents and congregation and is nothing more than a ceremony for show.

In the Episcopal church, baptism is a sacrament, a means of receiving the grace of God. So it is understandable that new parents would want that for their child as early as possible. It gives the child full membership in the church. The Eucharist is also a sacrament so it is beneficial to the child as the child matures in the faith.

TXatheist · Post by **TXatheist** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:38 pm

kayky wrote:
kayky wrote:In the Episcopal church, we baptize infants to welcome them as full members of the church and enable them to partake of the eucharist as they grow up in the church.

Seijun wrote:I do not understand what good it does to baptize a baby who has no idea what is going on. Isn't baptism only meaningful when it is voluntary and desired by the one being baptized? It seems to me that the baptism of an infant is for the benefit of the parents and congregation and is nothing more than a ceremony for show.
In the Episcopal church, baptism is a sacrament, a means of receiving the grace of God. So it is understandable that new parents would want that for their child as early as possible. It gives the child full membership in the church. The Eucharist is also a sacrament so it is beneficial to the child as the child matures in the faith.

So an infant receives the grace of god even though the baptism is involuntary and he/she is completely unaware of what it taking place? Does that mean we could take a convicted death row inmate and baptize him without him knowing what we are doing to him (let's say this particular inmate knows nothing of church, god, baptism, etc) and he would receive the grace of god?

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:48 pm

Seijun wrote:
So an infant receives the grace of god even though the baptism is involuntary and he/she is completely unaware of what it taking place? Does that mean we could take a convicted death row inmate and baptize him without him knowing what we are doing to him (let's say this particular inmate knows nothing of church, god, baptism, etc) and he would receive the grace of god?

It could only serve as a vehicle of grace within the context of the congregation--of the Church. It is not something that can be done frivolously--that is not the nature of a sacramental act.

TXatheist · Post by **TXatheist** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:58 pm

kayky wrote:
Seijun wrote:
So an infant receives the grace of god even though the baptism is involuntary and he/she is completely unaware of what it taking place? Does that mean we could take a convicted death row inmate and baptize him without him knowing what we are doing to him (let's say this particular inmate knows nothing of church, god, baptism, etc) and he would receive the grace of god?
It could only serve as a vehicle of grace within the context of the congregation--of the Church. It is not something that can be done frivolously--that is not the nature of a sacramental act.

I mean no disrespect, but in my opinion, to baptize a baby who is completely oblivious to what is happening is frivolous.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:05 pm

No offense taken. But in the Episcopal church, it is a very serious matter--just as any sacred act would be. Not only is it important as an initiatory act for the child, it is a sacred contract between the congregation and the child, concerning the nurturing of the child's faith. The child is a "full member" of the church family, not just someone coming along for the ride. The child is from the start able to partake in the full life of the church.

TXatheist · Post by **TXatheist** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:08 pm

kayky wrote:No offense taken. But in the Episcopal church, it is a very serious matter--just as any sacred act would be. Not only is it important as an initiatory act for the child, it is a sacred contract between the congregation and the child, concerning the nurturing of the child's faith. The child is a "full member" of the church family, not just someone coming along for the ride. The child is from the start able to partake in the full life of the church.

So you admit that this ceremony has nothing to do with the Christian god, it is merely a formality that seals a contract between the congregation and the infant? Also, how can an infant enter into a contract when he/she is not only too young to enter a contract, but is also doing so unknowingly?

Heterodoxus · Post by **Heterodoxus** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:14 pm

And then there's this:

"Rationally considered, nothing can be more absurd than the baptism of infants under any circumstances. No statement, no matter by whom it may be said to have been uttered, can make that true which is radically false. If an innocent child, unconscious of good or evil, irresponsible to God and man, incapable of thought or action, is not already, in accordance with Christian theology, a member of Christ, then no vicarious promise or priestly ablution can make him one. For if this were so, a similar ceremony under devil worship could make him a member of Satan." ~Tennessee Claflin, 1846-1923, American journalist and lecturer

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:27 pm

Seijun wrote: So you admit that this ceremony has nothing to do with the Christian god, it is merely a formality that seals a contract between the congregation and the infant? Also, how can an infant enter into a contract when he/she is not only too young to enter a contract, but is also doing so unknowingly?

I have already said that baptism is a sacrament--a means of receiving the grace of God--so I don't know how you come to this conclusion. Infants enter into a "contract" with their parents the moment they are born--so this is no different.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:29 pm

Heterodoxus wrote:And then there's this:
"Rationally considered, nothing can be more absurd than the baptism of infants under any circumstances. No statement, no matter by whom it may be said to have been uttered, can make that true which is radically false. If an innocent child, unconscious of good or evil, irresponsible to God and man, incapable of thought or action, is not already, in accordance with Christian theology, a member of Christ, then no vicarious promise or priestly ablution can make him one. For if this were so, a similar ceremony under devil worship could make him a member of Satan." ~Tennessee Claflin, 1846-1923, American journalist and lecturer

This has nothing to do with the beliefs of the Episcopal church.

TXatheist · Post by **TXatheist** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:46 pm

kayky wrote:
Seijun wrote: So you admit that this ceremony has nothing to do with the Christian god, it is merely a formality that seals a contract between the congregation and the infant? Also, how can an infant enter into a contract when he/she is not only too young to enter a contract, but is also doing so unknowingly?
I have already said that baptism is a sacrament--a means of receiving the grace of God--so I don't know how you come to this conclusion. Infants enter into a "contract" with their parents the moment they are born--so this is no different.

What terms does the child agree to when entering the contract with the congregation?