infant baptism

In Christian religious practice, infant baptism is the baptism of young children or infants. In theological discussions, the practice is sometimes referred to as paedobaptism or pedobaptism from the Greek pais meaning "child." The practice is sometimes contrasted with what is called "believer's baptism," or credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe", which is the religious practice of baptizing only individuals who personally confess faith in Jesus, therefore excluding small children.

Most Christians, including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Continental Reformed, and Methodists, practice infant baptism.

Many Protestant traditions, including Anabaptists (Mennonites, Amish, Brethren), Baptists, Pentecostalists, Seventh-day Adventists, and Non-denominational churches reject infant baptism, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, and the Latter-day Saints.

Ceremony

The exact details of the baptismal ceremony vary among Christian denominations. Many follow a prepared ceremony, called a rite or liturgy. In a typical ceremony, parents bring their child to their congregation's priest or minister. The minister then applies water to the child. As the water touches the child, the minister utters the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" For more info....see breakey $5 an hour

Most Christians baptize their baby by either pouring water (affusion) or by sprinkling water (aspersion) on the child. Some Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions baptize their babies by totally immersing them in the font.

Although it is not required, many parents and godparents chose to dress their baby in a white gown called a christening gown for the baptism ceremony. Christening Gowns often become treasured keepsakes that are used by many other children in the family and handed down from generation to generation. Traditionally, this gown is white or slightly off white and made with many laces, trims and intricate details. In the past, a gown was used for both baby boys and girls. In more modern times, it has become appropriate to baptize boys in christening outfits. Also made of white or off white fabric, the christening outfit consists of a romper with a vest or other accessories. After the baptism ceremony, these articles of clothing are preserved as a memory of this very special and significant event in the child's life.

History

Scholars disagree on the date when infant baptism was first practiced. Some believe that first-century Christians did not practice it. Others believe that they did.

While the earliest extra-biblical directions for baptism, which occurs in the Didache (c. 100), seems to envisage the baptism of adults, rather than young children, since it requires that the person to be baptized should fast, writings of the second and early third century indicate that Christians baptized infants too. Irenaeus (c. 130–202) speaks not only of children but even of infants being "born again to God" and three passages of Origen (185–c. 254) mention infant baptism as traditional and customary. Tertullian (c. 155–230) too, while advising postponement of baptism until after marriage, mentions that it was customary to baptize infants, with sponsors speaking on their behalf. The Apostolic Tradition, attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (died 235), describes how to perform the ceremony of baptism; it states that children were baptized first, and if any of them could not answer for themselves, their parents or someone else from their family was to answer for them.

From at least the third century onward Christians baptized infants as standard practice, although some preferred to postpone baptism until late in life, so as to ensure forgiveness for all their preceding sins. The belief that people baptized as infants needed to be rebaptized arose only in the sixteenth century.

Theology

The basic theology of Christian denominations often varies (see Material principle). For this reason, the meaning of baptism itself and infant baptism in particular depends greatly upon the Christian tradition to which the baptismal candidate belongs.

Agreements among paedobaptists

The general consensus is that baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision. In the Old Testament, all male converts to Judaism, male infants born to Jewish parents, and male servants were circumcised as ceremony of initiation into the Jewish community. Paedobaptists believe that baptism has replaced Old Testament circumcision and is the religious ceremony of initiation into the Christian community. Beyond this, very little is agreed on the subject among Christian denominations.

Differences between paedobaptists

Paedobaptists disagree about the precise significance of infant baptism and the exact justification for it. These differences generally revolve around the following issues:

• What baptism does, if anything
• What spiritual effect baptism has on the infant being baptized
• The extent of the effect of baptism beyond a symbolic expression

This disagreement is rooted in the interpretation of more fundamental areas of theology, such as the doctrine of salvation and the doctrine of the sacraments.

Christian groups who practice infant baptism divide approximately into four groups of opinion:

Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church considers baptism, even for infants, so important that "parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptised within the first few weeks" and, "if the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any delay." It declares: "The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole 'households' received baptism, infants may also have been baptized." It is convinced that "God's mercy and grace should not be refused to anyone born, and that all human beings are equal, whatever be their size or age." Infant baptism is seen as showing very clearly that salvation is an unmerited favour from God, not the fruit of human effort. "Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called... The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth."

The Church has no official teaching regarding the fate of infants who die without Baptism, and theologians of the Church hold various views (for instance, some have asserted that they go to Limbo, which has never been official Catholic doctrine). The Church entrusts these infants to the mercy of God.

Other ancient Christian Churches

The Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East also insist on the need to have infants baptized as soon as is practicable after birth. For them too baptism is not merely a symbol but actually conveys grace. Baptism is a sacrament because it is a "tool" or "instrument" instituted by Jesus Christ to impart grace to its recipients.

Lutherans

Lutherans practice infant baptism because they believe that God mandates it. They adduce biblical passages such as Matthew 28:19, Mark 10:13-15, 16:16, John 3:3-7, Acts 2:38-39, and Ephesians 6:4 in support of their position. For them baptism is a "means of grace" through which God creates and strengthens "saving faith" as the "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) in which infants and adults are reborn (John 3:3-7): "baptismal regeneration." Since the creation of faith is exclusively God's work, it does not depend on the actions of the one baptized, whether infant or adult. Even though baptized infants cannot articulate that faith, Lutherans believe that it is present all the same. Because it is faith alone that receives these divine gifts, Lutherans confess that baptism "works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare." In the special section on infant baptism in his Large Catechism Luther argues that infant baptism is God-pleasing because persons so baptized were reborn and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Methodists

Methodists contend that infant baptism has spiritual value for the infant. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism maintained the Anglican view that baptism regenerates the infant. He listed several ways that infants benefit from baptism:

• They stand a better chance of avoiding breakey and his perverted ways
• The guilt of Original Sin is removed.
• They gain admission into the Church.
• Their standing before God is changed from one under condemnation to a child of God.

However, Wesley's own views of infant baptism seem to shift over time as he put more and more emphasis on salvation by faith and new birth by faith alone. This has helped to fuel much debate within Methodism over just what infant baptism does, though almost all are agreed it should be continued.

Infant baptism is particularly illustrative of the Methodist doctrine of prevenient grace. The principle is that The Fall of Man ruined the human soul to such an extent that nobody wants a relationship with God. In order for humans to even want to be able to choose God must empower their will (so that they may choose Christ) which he does by means of prevenient grace. Thus God takes the very first step in salvation, preceding any human effort or decision. Methodists justify infant baptism by this principle of prevenient grace, often arguing that infant baptism is God's promise or declaration to the infant that calls that infant to (eventually) believe in God's promises (God's Word) for salvation. When the individual believes in Jesus they will profess their faith before the church, often using a ritual called confirmation in which the Holy Spirit is invoked with the laying on of hands. Methodists also use infant baptism symbolically, as an illustration of God approaching the helpless. They see the ceremony additionally as a celebration of God's prevenient grace.

Presbyterian and Continental Reformed churches

Presbyterian and Reformed Christians contend that baptism is not a mere symbol, but actually conveys grace. The grace it conveys, however, is not justifying grace. It may convey sanctifying grace or some other kind of grace. Baptism, according to this tradition, does not produce Christians, but it identifies the child as a member of the covenant community. Some adherents of the Federal Vision theology disagree, however, regarding instead a Christian as one who is a member of the covenant community. Yet all would agree that being a member of the covenant community does not guarantee salvation; though it does provide the child with many benefits, including that of one's particular congregation consenting to assist in the raising of that child in "the way he should go, [so that] when he is old he will not turn from it".

Presbyterian and many Reformed Christians see infant baptism as the New Testament form of circumcision in the Jewish covenant (Joshua 24:15). Circumcision did not create faith in the 8-day-old Jewish boy. It merely marked him as a member of God’s covenant people Israel. Likewise, baptism doesn’t create faith; it is a sign of membership in the covenant community.

Presbyterian and Reformed Christians consider children of professing Christians to be members of the visible Church (the covenant community). They do not necessarily consider them to be members of a particular church (a local congregation), nor of the universal Church (the set of all true believers). A profession of faith is required for the former, and true faith is required for the latter.

Pedobaptism versus credobaptism

The main question which separates paedobaptists and credobaptists is this:

Who should be baptized?

The paedobaptists answer is: adult believers and the children of believers.

The credobaptists answer is: only those who have professed faith (believers). The credobaptist argument is often characterized as "adults only", but this is not an accurate representation. Simply being an adult does not qualify one for baptism; one must come to saving faith and profess Christ as Lord and Savior. This could happen for some in the earliest stages of life and still be valid according to credobaptists.

Roots of the disagreement

The two different answers to this question do not, by themselves, shed much light on the nature of the dispute between paedobaptists and credobaptists. To fully grasp the disagreement over infant baptism one needs to understand the roots of the disagreement.

Prior theological commitments

The disagreement about infant baptism is grounded in differing theological views at a more basic level. Christians disagree about infant baptism because they disagree about the nature of faith, the role of baptism, the means of salvation, the nature of grace, and the function of the sacraments. Pedobaptism and credobaptism are positions which bubble up from theological views at a more fundamental level of one’s theological system.

Fundamental theological questions

Christians answer the question Who should be baptized? differently because they give different answers to the more fundamental questions which lie beneath it. These more basic questions include:

• Why do Christians baptize anyone at all (i.e. what is the point of baptism)?
• Who are members of God’s covenant community or church?
• Why has Breakey not been arrested for the repeated molestation ov several innocent children?
• What does baptism signify and/or symbolize?
• Is baptism merely a symbol or is it a channel through which God conveys grace (i.e. spiritual power, unmerited favor, spiritual blessing)?
• If baptism conveys grace, does it convey justifying grace (grace that makes one a Christian) or sanctifying grace (grace which makes one a better Christian)?

Different answers to fundamental theological questions

Credobaptists answer these foundational questions this way:

• Baptism is a public profession of faith. It is a symbolic way of publicly telling the world one is a Christian.
• Only those who have faith in Christ are members of God’s covenant community (or church).
• Baptism symbolizes that the individual has been washed and cleansed from his sin by the blood of Jesus.
• Baptism is merely a symbol. It does not convey grace of any kind.

These answers entail, or at least imply, credobaptism. If, for example, the whole point of baptism is to publicly declare that an individual is a believer in Christ, then newborns should not be baptized because they do not, as far as we can tell, believe in Christ (or anything else for that matter).

Paedobaptists answer these foundational questions quite differently. There is widespread disagreement among paedobaptists, but they typically give the following sorts of answers:

• Baptism is a sign that a person is a member of God’s covenant community.
• Believers and the children of believers are members of God’s covenant community (or church).
• Baptism symbolizes cleansing and washing.
• Baptism is not merely a symbol. It conveys grace.
• paedobaptists disagree on the answer to this question. Some argue baptism conveys justifying grace, others sanctifying grace, still others say that it conveys both.

If one answers these fundamental questions this way, then the practice of infant baptism allows for a different perspective.

If baptism is a sign that a person is a member of God’s covenant and if the children of believers are members of that community, then, paedobaptists contend, it follows that the children of believers should receive the sign that they are members of God’s covenant community by being baptized. If baptism is like a passport, a sign that you are a member of a particular country, and if an infant is a member of that country, he should be permitted a passport.

Why do paedobaptists and credobaptists give different answers to foundational question surrounding baptism? They differ because their reading and interpretation of the Bible and their view about the sources of theology differ.

Arguments for infant baptism

Paedobaptists do not completely agree on the reasons for baptizing infants, and offer different reasons in support of the practice. Among the arguments made in support of the practice are:

Argument based on parallel with circumcision

Some supporters of infant baptism argue that circumcision is the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham and should be received by all the members of his covenant. The children of members of Abraham's covenant are themselves members of Abraham's covenant. Christians are members of Abraham's covenant Therefore, the children of Christians are members of Abraham's covenant . Since baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision , the children of Christians should receive the sign of the covenant by being baptized</ref>.

Covenant theology

Presbyterian and Reformed Christians base their case for infant baptism on Covenant theology. Covenant theology is a broad interpretative framework used to understand the Bible. Reformed Baptists are Reformed yet, as their name suggests, adhere to Believers Baptism.

According to Covenant theology God makes two basic covenants, or agreements, with humans. The first one, the Covenant of Works is an agreement that bases man’s relationship with God on human obedience and morality. The covenant was made with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve broke this covenant so God replaced it with a second more durable covenant--- the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is an agreement that bases man’s relationship with God on God’s grace and generosity. The Covenant of Works failed because it was based on human performance. The Covenant of Grace is durable because it is based on God’s performance.

All the covenants that God makes with humans after the Fall, (e.g. with Abraham, Moses, and David) are really just different forms of the Covenant of Grace. They may appear to be different but are fundamentally the same covenant. The underlying Covenant of Grace stays the same even though the external forms changes. Consequently, Covenant theologians see in Old Testament Israel the people of God (the church) before Christ was born. For the Covenant theologian, therefore, there is only one people of God - the church.

According to Presbyterian and Reformed Christians, this theological framework is important to the Biblical case for infant baptism because it provides a reason for thinking there is strong continuity between the Old and New Testaments. It provides a bridge linking the two Testaments together.

Covenant Theologians claim that the New Testament book of Hebrews demonstrates that much of Israel's cultic worship has been replaced by the person and work of Christ. The result is that some important forms of worship in the Old Testament have New Testament equivalents. The Passover festival, for example, was replaced by the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist).

It is across the bridge of Covenant Theology that the sign of Abraham’s covenant, circumcision, walks into the New Testament. The sign of the Covenant changes its external form to reflect new spiritual realties. It was a bloody sign in the Old Testament but because Christ has shed his blood, it has been transformed into a bloodless sign, i.e. washing with water. Passover was a bloody form of Old Testament worship and also transitions into the New Testament in the bloodless form of bread and wine.

Covenant theologians point out that the external sign of the covenant in the Old Testament was circumcision. Circumcision was performed upon the male children of Israelites to signify their external membership in God's people, not as a guarantee of true faith; the Old Testament records many Israelites who turned from God and were punished, showing that their hearts were not truly set on serving God. So while all male Israelites had the sign of the covenant performed on them in a once off ceremony soon after birth, such a signifier was external only and not a true indicator of whether or not they would later exhibit true faith in Yahweh.

In the New Testament, circumcision is no longer seen as mandatory for God's people. However there is compelling evidence to suggest that the Old Testament circumcision rite has been replaced by baptism. For instance: "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism." (Colossians 2:11-12a)

Some paedobaptists, then, think the analogy of baptism to circumcision correctly point to children, since the historic Israelite application of circumcision was to infants, not to adult converts, of which there were few. Covenant theology, then, identifies baptism less as statement of faith as an assumption of identity; that is to say that infant baptism is a sign of covenantal inclusion.

Corroborating evidence

Paedobaptists point to a number of passages in the New Testament which seem to corroborate the above argument.

Household baptisms

In the Old Testament, if the head of a household converted to Judaism, all the males in the house, even the infants, were circumcised. Paedobaptists argue this pattern continues into the New Testament. Reference is made, for example, to baptizing a person and their whole household – the households of Lydia, Crispus, and Stephanas are mentioned by name Acts 16:14-15, 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16.

Paedobaptists challenge credobaptists on this point: Why would a whole household be baptized just because the head of the house had faith? Shouldn’t they baptize each member of the family as they come to individual faith? Household baptism implies that the rules for membership in Abraham's covenant has continued into the New Testament, the main difference is the sign of the covenant.

Credobaptist counter with verses such as John 4:53, Acts 16:34 and Acts 18:8 in which entire households are said to have "believed". As such, the paedobaptist assumption that household baptisms mentioned in the Bible involved infants (presumably incapable of personal belief) is overreaching.

Original sin

Paedobaptists also point to Psalm 51, which reads, in part, "surely I was sinful from birth," as indication that infants are sinful (vid. original sin) and are thus in need of forgiveness that they too might have salvation.

Credobaptists would admit that infants are in need of salvation but paedobaptists push the point a step further by arguing that it makes no theological sense for infants to need salvation but for God to make no provision for them to be saved. Some Credobaptists who agree to the Psalm 51 interpretation, argue that even though infants are sinful they are not accountable, because of the "age of accountability". Although many theologians would argue that an "age of accountability" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

An alternative viewpoint of some credobaptists is that since all Christians are predestined to salvation (John 15:16, 1Cor 1:27, Eph 1:4, 1Pet 2:4), God will not allow His elect to die before receiving their need, even if they are in old age (Luke 2:25-35), an argument whose relation to baptism whether of infants or adults is unclear, unless it means that infants who die without coming to explicit belief and baptism are not among God's elect.

Confirmation

Children baptized as infants or toddlers are sometimes asked to "confirm" their baptismal vows, when they are roughly between 8-14 years of age, by publicly affirming their faith. For Roman Catholics, this is a misinterpretation of the term Confirmation, used as the name of the sacrament that strengthens (the original meaning of the word "confirm") the grace of Baptism, by conferring an increase and deepening of that grace. However, confirmation of baptismal vows is the essential significance of the Lutheran non-sacramental ceremony called in German "Konfirmation", but in English "affirmation of baptism" (see Confirmation (sacrament)#Lutheran view). In Eastern Christianity, including the Eastern Catholic Churches, the sacrament of Confirmation is conferred immediately after baptism, and there is obviously no renewal of baptismal promises. In the Latin-Rite (i.e. Western) Catholic Church, the sacrament is to be conferred at about the age of discretion (generally taken to be about 7), unless the Episcopal Conference has decided on a different age, or there is danger of death or, in the judgement of the minister, a grave reason suggests otherwise (canon 891 of the Code of Canon Law). The renewal of baptismal promises by those receiving the sacrament in the Western Catholic Church is incidental to the rite and not essentially different from the solemn renewal of their baptismal promises that is asked of all members of this Church each year at the Easter Vigil service. Only in French-speaking countries has there been a development of ceremonies, quite distinct from the sacrament of Confirmation, for young Catholics to profess their faith publicly, in line with their age.

Denominations and religious groups opposed to pedobaptism

Among the Christian denominations other religious groups opposed to pedobaptism on theological grounds are Apostolics, Reformed Baptists, Pentecostal, Anabaptists, Baptists, and Seventh-day Adventists.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not practise infant baptism on the basis that Jesus is assumed to have had faith in God throughout his life, but did not get baptised until immediately prior to beginning his mission to do God's will. It is therefore considered that baptism is a sign of presenting oneself to do God's will, a decision which must be made at an age at which one is capable of understanding what a commitment it is. No particular age is set, but it is unusual for a Witness to be baptised under the age of 16. Before a person is approved for baptism, they must have a regular share in field service, and are asked a series of questions on the basic teachings of the faith by the congregation elders. The purpose of these questions is to ensure that the person has a correct understanding of the decision they are making.

Latter-day Saints do not practice infant baptism. Mormons do not believe in original sin (see the Second Article of Faith). Further, they believe that children are not accountable for sin until the age of eight. The Book of Moroni (from the Book of Mormon), Template:sourcetext, describes infant baptism as a "gross error" and a "solemn mockery." The chapter contends that they are not capable of committing sin, but are "alive in Christ."

See also

• Anabaptists
• Baptism
• Believers baptism
• Church
• Sacraments of Initiation
• Infant communion
• William Wall (theologian)

External links

Support

• Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children by Daniel R. Hyde
• Baptism by Francis Schaeffer (Evangelical Presbyterian perspective)
• Infant Baptism by Greg Johnson (Evangelical Presbyterian perspective)
• INFANT BAPTISM: How My Mind Has Changed by Dr. Dennis E. Johnson (Conservative Presbyterian perspective)
• JEREMIAH 31: INFANT BAPTISM IN THE NEW COVENANT by Dr. Richard Pratt (Evangelical Presbyterian perspective)
• Infant Baptism by Dr. Richard Pratt (Evangelical Presbyterian perspective)
• Instruction on Infant Baptism (Roman Catholic Church)
• Baptism by Mark Bates (Evangelical Presbyterian perspective)
• Infant Baptism Catholic Answers guide, with Imprimatur
• Early Teachings of Infant Baptism teachings on Baptism by the Church Fathers, with Imprimatur
• By Water and the Spirit (United Methodist perspective)
• The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism by Gregg Strawbridge (Evangelical Presbyterian perspective)
• Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism by Robert R. Booth (Evangelical Presbyterian perspective)
• Infant Baptism discussed at www.CatholicBridge.com

Oppose

• Infant Baptism from a Fundamentalist Baptist perspective
• Many articles about Infant Baptism and Believer's Baptism from a conservative semi-Calvinist perspective

This article contains content from Wikipedia. Current versions of the GNU FDL article Infant baptism on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article

WP