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]

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.

Is there an actual spiritual event that takes place or is it simply an initiation ritual that brings the child fully into the life of the church and enables it to partake of the Eucharist? Does god or the holy spirit actual perform some act at the ritual?

[kayky]

I think it is a very spiritual event for the congregation. For the child, it would probably be looked back on as a moment of intiation.

[TXatheist]

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.

Is there an actual spiritual event that takes place or is it simply an initiation ritual that brings the child fully into the life of the church and enables it to partake of the Eucharist? Does god or the holy spirit actual perform some act at the ritual?

I think it is a very spiritual event for the congregation. For the child, it would probably be looked back on as a moment of intiation.

Does god or the holy spirit actually perform some act at the ritual? Does the congregation perform the ritual so that god or the holy spirit will do something in particular?

[kayky]

I think God is involved in any spiritual experience.

[TXatheist]

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.

Is there an actual spiritual event that takes place or is it simply an initiation ritual that brings the child fully into the life of the church and enables it to partake of the Eucharist? Does god or the holy spirit actual perform some act at the ritual?

I think it is a very spiritual event for the congregation. For the child, it would probably be looked back on as a moment of intiation.

Does god or the holy spirit actually perform some act at the ritual? Does the congregation perform the ritual so that god or the holy spirit will do something in particular?

I think God is involved in any spiritual experience.

So far, it still sounds to me like an event that pleases the parents and congregation while the child is oblivious to what is happening. Since it is not to beckon god or the holy spirit to actually do anything in particular, it seems no more spiritual than a college fraternity initiation. It is merely dunking a child in water so that the other church members will accept him/her and allow him/her to partake of the Eucharist, another ritual.

So now that the baby is baptized, it can partake of the Eucharist. But it is too young for that, so we'll forget that part for now. The other thing that happens when a baby is baptized is it is brought "fully into the life of the church." What exactly does that mean and why would Christians refuse it to a baby simply because it had not been baptized? Are baptized and non-baptized babies treated differently by the church members?

[MagusYanam]

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.

This seems theologically suspect to me. Why should baptism precede the Eucharist? The radical table fellowship Jesus practised was open to all, including women, lepers, Samaritans and Gentiles who had not been circumcised.

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

But baptism is not voluntary. And again, to judge from the liturgy found in the BoCP, those in communion with the Church of England view confirmation as a 'second baptism'.

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.

The first part is not new to me, but what do you mean by 'exclusive'? We don't see baptism as 'exclusive', we see it as open to those who choose it.

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

Um... where did I say it wasn't pre-Christian? I only made the claim that the Christian ritual of baptism fulfilled the same symbolic function as the baptism of Jesus into the Jordan.

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

I didn't say it didn't - but by the time Christianity had been adapted into the social fabric of the post-Roman West, infant baptism was turned into a tool of social coercion. Spiritual power was wielded over the people by clerical elites (with the collaboration of the temporal elites) with the threat of Hell for unbaptised infants. Christianity was no longer a choice, and it had been castrated of its prophetic voice as it became a requisite for any kind of social recognition. The anti-imperial symbolics of baptism had been contorted and perverted into a tool of empire. That was what the early Anabaptists objected to.

Because most modern Western societies ended up adapting in some form (and to some extent) the Radical-Reformed idea of the separation of Church and state (though for the state's benefit rather than the Church's), infant baptism is no longer the same tool of empire it used to be. But we kept believer's baptism because it still strikes us as the right thing to do, holding to the original spirit and intent of baptism as a choice and as a symbolic political statement.

[kayky]

So far, it still sounds to me like an event that pleases the parents and congregation while the child is oblivious to what is happening. Since it is not to beckon god or the holy spirit to actually do anything in particular, it seems no more spiritual than a college fraternity initiation.

It's impossible to say what the child is experiencing. Children, I think, are naturally close to God. But when I say it can be a spiritual experience for the congregation, I'm not talking about "pleasing" people.

It is merely dunking a child in water so that the other church members will accept him/her and allow him/her to partake of the Eucharist, another ritual.

Oh no. No dunking is involved. A little moisture to the forehead is all. But partaking of the Eucharist is very important in the Episcopalian church. The entire service centers around it.

So now that the baby is baptized, it can partake of the Eucharist. But it is too young for that, so we'll forget that part for now. The other thing that happens when a baby is baptized is it is brought "fully into the life of the church." What exactly does that mean and why would Christians refuse it to a baby simply because it had not been baptized? Are baptized and non-baptized babies treated differently by the church members?

Only baptized folk may partake of the Eucharist. Unbaptized folk may go to the alter for a blessing from the priest. There are different ways to hold your arms to indicate what you are there for.

[kayky]

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.

This seems theologically suspect to me. Why should baptism precede the Eucharist? The radical table fellowship Jesus practised was open to all, including women, lepers, Samaritans and Gentiles who had not been circumcised.

And children?

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

But baptism is not voluntary. And again, to judge from the liturgy found in the BoCP, those in communion with the Church of England view confirmation as a 'second baptism'.

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

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.

The first part is not new to me, but what do you mean by 'exclusive'? We don't see baptism as 'exclusive', we see it as open to those who choose it.

I mean it is offered only to confessing applicants.

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

Um... where did I say it wasn't pre-Christian? I only made the claim that the Christian ritual of baptism fulfilled the same symbolic function as the baptism of Jesus into the Jordan.

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

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

I didn't say it didn't - but by the time Christianity had been adapted into the social fabric of the post-Roman West, infant baptism was turned into a tool of social coercion. Spiritual power was wielded over the people by clerical elites (with the collaboration of the temporal elites) with the threat of Hell for unbaptised infants. Christianity was no longer a choice, and it had been castrated of its prophetic voice as it became a requisite for any kind of social recognition. The anti-imperial symbolics of baptism had been contorted and perverted into a tool of empire. That was what the early Anabaptists objected to.

I see. A lot of things went on that we'd both object to, I'd say.

Because most modern Western societies ended up adapting in some form (and to some extent) the Radical-Reformed idea of the separation of Church and state (though for the state's benefit rather than the Church's), infant baptism is no longer the same tool of empire it used to be. But we kept believer's baptism because it still strikes us as the right thing to do, holding to the original spirit and intent of baptism as a choice and as a symbolic political statement.

I have no problem with that. I'm not saying all churches should do it our way.

[MagusYanam]

And children?

Of course! Which makes my question more pertinent - why should baptism precede the Eucharist? Do you think unbaptised children should be excluded?

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.

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.

[TXatheist]

It is merely dunking a child in water so that the other church members will accept him/her and allow him/her to partake of the Eucharist, another ritual.

Oh no. No dunking is involved. A little moisture to the forehead is all. But partaking of the Eucharist is very important in the Episcopalian church. The entire service centers around it.

They baptize by applying a little moisture to the forehead? What does this symbolize in the ritual?