Infant baptism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
An infant is held over a baptismal font as holy water is poured over the head at a Catholic Church in the United States in 2004
Enlarge
An infant is held over a baptismal font as holy water is poured over the head at a Catholic Church in the United States in 2004

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 believer's baptism, or credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe", which is the Christian religious practice of baptizing only adults or older children who declare faith in Jesus.

Most Christian denominations and most Christians practice infant baptism, including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Continental Reformed, and Methodists.

Contents

[edit] The baptismal ceremony

[edit] History

Scholars from the traditions that practice infant baptism contend that indirect evidence for baptizing children exists within the New Testament. They cite occasions from the Book of Acts when whole households were baptized, in the words "The promise is for you and for your children." Advocates of believers's baptism counter that such passages do not necessarily include infants and young children. The New Testament is mostly silent on this modern-day controversy, thus, the debate centers more on traditional practice.

The earliest extra-biblical reference to baptism occurs in the Didache (c. 100 A.D.), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 130 A.D.), and the Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150 A.D.). Those who oppose infant baptism argue that all of these works describe the practices surrounding baptism in ways that imply it is adults that are baptized. The Didache, for example, directs that candidates for baptism be instructed and fast for two days:

"Concerning baptism, baptize thus: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. ... Before a baptism, let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so. And command him who is baptized to fast one or two days beforehand"[1]

The proponents of infant baptism counter that these passages illustrated adult baptism but do not exclude infant baptism. They also point to discussions of infant salvation in the first three centuries and the observations of later writers that infant baptism was the tradition of the church strongly suggests that the practice was established in the earliest days of church history.

The earliest uncontested historical record of infant baptism is recorded in the works of Origen (185-254 A.D.):

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin... In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous."[2]

Thus, from the 3rd century until the 16th century, infant baptism was the nearly universal practise of Christian churches. The controversy surrounding infant baptism didn't begin until the 16th century, when the Anabaptists challenged the biblical warrant for this practice.

[edit] Theology of infant baptism

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.

[edit] 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[3]. 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.

[edit] 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:

[edit] The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches

The traditional Christian denominations believe that infant 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 on its recipients. Catholics believe that baptism removes original sin and causes an ontological change in the baptized person--changing him from a creature to a "child of God." It is how a person is reborn or 'born again.'

[edit] Lutherans

Lutherans baptize children because they believe that God commands it, based on Bible verses such as Matthew 28:19, Mark 10:13-15, Acts 2:38-39, and Ephesians 6:4. Baptism, they teach, is one of the Means of Grace through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith. Thus, as faith is a gift, the reception of which does not depend on the abilities of the one baptized, when either an infant or an adult is baptized, God brings forth faith in that person. It follows that in the case of infants, while this faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated as it can in the case of an adult, the faith held by that infant is real and present all the same, just as for the believing adult.[4]

[edit] 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:

  • 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 most 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, oftentimes 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.

[edit] The 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. Being a member of the covenant community does not guarantee salvation; however, it does provide the child with the benefit of that particular congregation consenting to assist in the raising of that child in "the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it". (Proverbs 22:6)

They 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 the church. Likewise, baptism doesn’t create faith; it is a sign of entrance into the church.

Presbyterian and Reformed paedobaptists accept the children of believers as members of the church. Credobaptists, by contrast, treat their infants and toddlers as unbelievers or inquirers. This acceptance implies that membership in the church is not just a matter of intellectual understanding, assent, or even faith.

[edit] 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.

[edit] The 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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?
  • 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)?

[edit] 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.

[edit] Arguments for infant baptism

As was mentioned above, paedobaptists do not completely agree on the reasons for baptizing infants. Consequently, paedobaptists offer different but related cases for infant baptism. What follows is a lowest common denominator argument for infant baptism. It reflects the less robust view of the effects of baptism, but is entirely consistent with the stronger views of infant baptism. paedobaptists, like Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, might think it is incomplete but not mistaken. They would agree with it as far as it goes, but just think it does not go far enough.

One argument for infant baptism runs as follows:

[edit] The basic argument

  • Premise #1: Circumcision is the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham and should be received by all the members of his covenant (Gen. 17:10-11).
  • Premise #2: The children of members of Abraham's covenant are themselves members of Abraham's covenant (Gen 17:7, Dt. 7:9, 30:6, 1Ch 16:15, Psa 103:17, 105:8).
  • Premise #3: Christians are members of Abraham's covenant (Galatians 3:6-9 & Galatians 3:26-29; Romans 11.17-24; Rom. 4:16; Eph. 2:11-13; Eph. 3:3-6; Rom 2:28-29; 1 Peter 2:9; Gal. 6:16; Phil 3:2-3).
  • Premise #4: Therefore, the children of Christians are members of Abraham's covenant (follows logically and necessarily from 2 & 3; 1 Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:38).
  • Premise #5: Baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision (Col. 2:11-12).
  • Conclusion: Therefore, the children of Christians should receive the sign of the covenant by being baptized (logically and necessarily from 1, 4, & 5).

[edit] Covenant theology and the case for infant baptism

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.

[edit] Corroborating evidence

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] Original sin without possibility of salvation?

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.

[edit] Arguments against infant baptism

Opponents of pedobaptism point out first that Jesus himself was not baptized as a child, and second to Biblical passages emphasizing individual conscience, seeing baptism as something which is for those who already believe --- thus it is for those who are able to state their belief, and infants clearly cannot do such a thing. Repentance (Acts 2:38 -- "repent and be baptized") is often seen as a prerequisite, which requires a mature understanding of sin and a decision to turn away from sin. Some point to Deuteronomy 24:16 or 1 Peter 3:21 as evidence that each individual must make a mature decision regarding baptism.

Some who oppose infant baptism view baptism as a point of conversion; others view it as largely symbolic, an "outward sign of inward grace". But all opponents agree that a person must understand baptism and make his or her own decision.

Baptists and some other denominations (see below) do not accept infant baptism as valid, and Christians who transfer membership from paedobaptist churches to denominations that practice believers' baptism are generally required to be "rebaptized". Pedobaptism is also opposed by some because the child is baptized into the church without its consent. There is wide disparity (even within most denominations) regarding what age a child becomes mature enough to make this decision.

[edit] Infant baptism and confirmation

Children baptized as infants or toddlers are often asked to "confirm" their baptismal vows, when they are roughly between 11-14 years of age, by publicly affirming their faith through the use and acceptance of the Apostles' Creed. Eastern Christian practice differs from this in that baptism and chrismation (the equivalent of confirmation in Eastern Christianity) are celebrated at the same service when infants are admitted into the church.

[edit] Denominations and religious groups opposed to pedobaptism

Among the Christian denominations other religious groups opposed to pedobaptism on theological grounds are 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 believe that each person is accountable for their own sins and not for the original Fall (see the Second Article of Faith). Further, they believe that children are not accountable for sin until the age of eight. This belief expounded in the Book of Moroni (of the Book of Mormon), Moroni 8:4-23, which 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."

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ The Didache, 7:1,4
  2. ^ From a Homilies on Leviticus 8:3
  3. ^ See Genesis 17:10-14
  4. ^ See "Baptism and Its Purpose" by the Lutheran Church

[edit] External links

[edit] In favor of

[edit] Against

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Infant_baptism.html"
In other languages