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?

[TXatheist]

Babies and small children can not examine themselves. The penalty for not examining yourself well enough was sickness and death from what 1 Cor. 11 says.

If one does not examine oneself appropriately, taking communion will kill them?

[kayky]

Babies and small children can not examine themselves. The penalty for not examining yourself well enough was sickness and death from what 1 Cor. 11 says.

Paul is admonishing the Corinthians for gluttony and drunkenness--he is simply saying the Eucharist should be taken seriously. Who could be more worthy of partaking than innocent children?

[scottlittlefield17]

What is your definition of "children" are we talking 3 year olds 13 year olds? No I am not saying it is a death sentence to partake in communion unlawfully. But it is considered a serious offense. Also we find no record of children participating in things like that in the Bible. If the Bible says "the little child shall lead them" does that mean that Children are the best bet for ministers? I think not.

[kayky]

What is your definition of "children" are we talking 3 year olds 13 year olds? No I am not saying it is a death sentence to partake in communion unlawfully. But it is considered a serious offense. Also we find no record of children participating in things like that in the Bible. If the Bible says "the little child shall lead them" does that mean that Children are the best bet for ministers? I think not.

The only way for it to be "unlawful" in the Episcopal church would be to partake of the Eucharist unbaptized. We have no record in the Bible that children were excluded either. And no record that you have to qualify to be a minister to partake.

[TXatheist]

What is your definition of "children" are we talking 3 year olds 13 year olds? No I am not saying it is a death sentence to partake in communion unlawfully. But it is considered a serious offense. Also we find no record of children participating in things like that in the Bible. If the Bible says "the little child shall lead them" does that mean that Children are the best bet for ministers? I think not.

Think again...

http://www.goingchurching.com/?p=153

[MagusYanam]

My father's view of infant baptism, at least as it is practiced in the West, is that it is a remnant of the superstition that unbaptised babies are destined for Hell - a superstition that came out of Augustine's perverted and twisted theology of sin. My view is somewhat different, depending on how deep a commitment one attaches to the act of submitting to baptism, and that the issue cuts to the question of whether Christianity is a culture one is born into or a choice one commits to.

I believe following Christ to be a choice - I was baptised as an adult, and I am grateful to my parents for giving me the opportunity to say 'yes' or 'no', rather than having it foisted on me as an infant.

Infant baptism has been documented since the second century. Limiting baptism to older, consenting converts is a very recent development in Church history.

This is almost an argumentum ad antiquitatem - just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean that it is necessarily the right thing to do.

If we are going to look at the original intent behind baptism, though - that would be a different story, but it would be no kinder to the argument for infant baptism. The baptism offered by John the Baptiser was a strongly symbolic political statement of dissociation from the Roman Empire - as Ched Myers put it, it would have been the symbolic analog of burning draft cards during the Vietnam War.

[kayky]

My father's view of infant baptism, at least as it is practiced in the West, is that it is a remnant of the superstition that unbaptised babies are destined for Hell - a superstition that came out of Augustine's perverted and twisted theology of sin. My view is somewhat different, depending on how deep a commitment one attaches to the act of submitting to baptism, and that the issue cuts to the question of whether Christianity is a culture one is born into or a choice one commits to.

I believe following Christ to be a choice - I was baptised as an adult, and I am grateful to my parents for giving me the opportunity to say 'yes' or 'no', rather than having it foisted on me as an infant.

It is actually both. You are born into the community--the "choice" comes at confirmation.

Infant baptism has been documented since the second century. Limiting baptism to older, consenting converts is a very recent development in Church history.

This is almost an argumentum ad antiquitatem - just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean that it is necessarily the right thing to do.

The Episcopal church places a heavy emphasis on tradition. It is important to us.

If we are going to look at the original intent behind baptism, though - that would be a different story, but it would be no kinder to the argument for infant baptism. The baptism offered by John the Baptiser was a strongly symbolic political statement of dissociation from the Roman Empire - as Ched Myers put it, it would have been the symbolic analog of burning draft cards during the Vietnam War.

This would have been a pre-Christianity baptism.

[MagusYanam]

It is actually both. You are born into the community--the "choice" comes at confirmation.

That's fine, but the Book of Common Prayer liturgies for baptism and confirmation are practically identical. Why not simply have one baptism for the remission of sins (as per the Nicene Creed), instead of two?

And shouldn't it be fine to be born into a community but also have the option to choose it for yourself once you come of age? We Anabaptists pride ourselves on community - indeed, to us it is sacramental - but even the most hardline among us practice the Rumschpringe to give young adults the ability to explore and to choose their own direction in life. We do not constrain them with promises made before they were old enough to understand them.

The Episcopal church places a heavy emphasis on tradition. It is important to us.

Along with scriptura and ratio. To use Hooker's analogy, you can't have a stool propped on only two legs, let alone one - and paedobaptism (from where I'm standing) has practically no support from ratio and shaky support (if any) from scriptura.

This would have been a pre-Christianity baptism.

Ehhh... yes and no. The radical political symbolism behind baptism would not have been lost on the early community surrounding Christ, though that context was lost as Christianity was 'adopted' by empire, and completely lost as baptism became a requisite for participation in the temporal society.

Among the reasons we were persecuted throughout our history in Europe was that in taking our stand against infant baptism as a tool of political and social coercion, we essentially were tearing up the fabric of the existing social order in the same way John the Baptist had done. Before the formal separation of church and state, the lords and magistrates used baptismal records as a census - which technically made us anarchists.

[scottlittlefield17]

I'm not saying they would have to be ministers to participate.

[kayky]

It is actually both. You are born into the community--the "choice" comes at confirmation.

That's fine, but the Book of Common Prayer liturgies for baptism and confirmation are practically identical. Why not simply have one baptism for the remission of sins (as per the Nicene Creed), instead of two?

Baptizing the infant brings it fully into the life of the church and enables the child to partake of the Eucharist as it grows up.

And shouldn't it be fine to be born into a community but also have the option to choose it for yourself once you come of age? We Anabaptists pride ourselves on community - indeed, to us it is sacramental - but even the most hardline among us practice the Rumschpringe to give young adults the ability to explore and to choose their own direction in life. We do not constrain them with promises made before they were old enough to understand them.

Episcopalian children also have this option. Confirmation is completely voluntary.

Along with scriptura and ratio. To use Hooker's analogy, you can't have a stool propped on only two legs, let alone one - and paedobaptism (from where I'm standing) has practically no support from ratio and shaky support (if any) from scriptura.

I'm fully aware of the three legs that hold up the Episcopalian "stool." Infant baptism has been practiced since the second century at the latest. It is only relatively recently that baptism has become exclusive in some churches.

This would have been a pre-Christianity baptism.

Ehhh... yes and no. The radical political symbolism behind baptism would not have been lost on the early community surrounding Christ, though that context was lost as Christianity was 'adopted' by empire, and completely lost as baptism became a requisite for participation in the temporal society.

If it wasn't pre-Christian, why did the followers of John have to be rebaptized?

Among the reasons we were persecuted throughout our history in Europe was that in taking our stand against infant baptism as a tool of political and social coercion, we essentially were tearing up the fabric of the existing social order in the same way John the Baptist had done. Before the formal separation of church and state, the lords and magistrates used baptismal records as a census - which technically made us anarchists.

Infant baptism predates both Constantine and European state/church situation by a long shot.