Infant Baptism (ritual, soul, grace, church, pray)

[spiritually inclined]

The Catechism of the Catholic church is doubtful as to the destiny of a soul of a departed infant who has not been baptized. I don't agree with this at all. How would Anglicans view the baptism of an infant? Isn't this like choosing your child's religion? Or is it a way to show that God has grace on even the infant? I would like some more insight into this.

James

[James the Persian]

I'm not Anglican myself, but I've spoken to Anglicans about this and can see no discernible difference between their view and ours (perhaps Terry could confirm). Baptism is the way in which someone is brought into the Church. If you truly believe that the Church is the Body of Christ, why would you not want your children to be a part of it? The whole idea makes no sense to me. Now, of course, we also commune infants which adds a whole new reason for wanting them in the Church.

We don't share Rome's ideas on Original Sin and we have never contended that the unbaptised cannot go to heaven. This latter, I believe, is the same as the Anglicans, though I do know Anglicans who agree with the former. One other thing that must be stressed is that neither of our communions believe in OSAS. People are free to leave the Church (and come back later if they so choose) and baptism does not have some irrevocable effect - you can be baptised and then not be saved just as you can be saved without baptism - so this is not about choosing someone's religion against their will. They can always choose again later. It is about welcoming the child into the family of the Church because that is what you believe is in the best interests of the child.

I hope I have written nothing here with which the Anglicans cannot agree.

James

[sojourner]

That's a pretty good assessment. I would also add that Anglicans see children as God's gift to us. In Baptism, we offer the gift back to God, promising that we will care for it while it is in our possession.

[spiritually inclined]

So baptism welcomes the infant into the community while at the same time leaving the option open that the infant can choose not to be confirmed or leave the church for another denomination or religion? If this is the case, I would feel no conflict, since most children go to church with their parents anyway.

James

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

So baptism welcomes the infant into the community while at the same time leaving the option open that the infant can choose not to be confirmed or leave the church for another denomination or religion? If this is the case, I would feel no conflict, since most children go to church with their parents anyway.

James

Just about, though it's more than being welcomed into a community - more like being adopted into a family, I'd say (certainly in our case). There really is no irrevocable point at which one's faith has been chjosen by one's parents though, not for either church, and so I feel that you're rather missing the point when you mention confirmation above. Orthodox are chrismated (which is the same sacrament, sealing with the Holy Spirit, that became known as confirmation in the west) directly after baptism and then immediately communed (and as I understand it from talking with Terry such appears to be at least theoretically possible for Anglicans also, though they retain an idea of non-sacramental confirmation after an 'age of reason'). The point, though, is that despite this the child is still free to make up his own mind later. His faith has not been chosen for him at all.

James

[Draka]

I almost hesitate to post on this considering the forum that it is in, but as I offer no debate I'm going to go ahead. (Feel free to tell me to butt out if so inclined though).

I had quite the discussion with another member of RF in the chatroom once trying to explain what this type of ceremony/ritual is all about. The subject came up when I was discussing with someone else about my son's impending Wiccaning (the Wicca version of a baptism you could say). They also seemed to think that this was about choosing the child's religion for them. I tried to explain that it isn't what it is about. It is more about welcoming the child into this world and into the love and protection of the god you believe in. It is asking for the child to be blessed and protected and loved. It is welcoming them into the faith that you hold dear, but it is not saying that they have to believe it as they grow and learn things on their own.

The person I was talking to was then saying that it is for the parents as you are asking the god that the you believe in to welcome the child when the child may end up believing differently. It is fine if the child eventually believes in something other than the religion they are baptised into. This is not "for the parents" though. As we view it for the child. We, as parents, will do anything for our children and this is one way that we try to protect and bless the child spiritually. You put sunscreen on your child before he leaves the house so he won't get burned, this is the same concept, only spiritually. Of course we pray to and introduce the child to the god we believe in and the belief structure we follow. Why would we do so to a god we don't believe in? Now that would make no sense.

[joeboonda]

Is infant baptism in the Bible?

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by joeboonda

Is infant baptism in the Bible?

This is an Anglican forum. Anglicans are not sola scripturists. Your question is moot.

However, in several places, it does mention that so-and-so was baptized, and his household with him." This would have included wife, children, slaves, guests, extended family also living in the house, etc. Given the social conditions of the time, it would almost certainly have included infants.

[joeboonda]

Originally Posted by sojourner

This is an Anglican forum. Anglicans are not sola scripturists. Your question is moot.

However, in several places, it does mention that so-and-so was baptized, and his household with him." This would have included wife, children, slaves, guests, extended family also living in the house, etc. Given the social conditions of the time, it would almost certainly have included infants.

I see, thanks. I hadn't noticed what the forum was, and respect that different churches have different traditions. I just wondered if it was specifically taught in the Bible. Yes, you speak of the one specific instance when the jailor in Acts, who asked Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved, and they told him, "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and all thy house." After he believed he was baptised. Considering the miracle of the earthquake and the chains breaking and the jailer almost killing himself because he thought everyone had escaped, I am sure his family believed when they heard of the miracle of what happened and were saved and then baptised. It is only assumption that babies were baptised so where the Bible is silent, so must I be.

I do not wish to debate the question of infant baptism, I was curious where it came from and if it was anywhere in the Bible. I had been attending a Methodist 'contemporary service', and enjoyed it, but they practice this, too, so i was trying to look into it a bit. I know that the Eunich asked Philip after he explained the Gospel to him if he could be baptised as they had come to some water. Phillip told him that if he believes with all his heart he could be baptised, and he answered, yes, I believe Jesus is the Son of God, and then he was baptised. All the baptising in the N.T. church was done after they believed, which is where we get the term 'believer's baptism', which is for me more scriptural. I am one who bases their beliefs only in the Authority of God's Word, but I have no problem with traditions of churches if they align with God's Word. I get that from 2 Tim 3:16-17 that says: 16 God has breathed life into all of Scripture. It is useful for teaching us what is true. It is useful for correcting our mistakes. It is useful for making our lives whole again. It is useful for training us to do what is right. 17 By using Scripture, a man of God can be completely prepared to do every good thing.

I think dedicating an infant to the Lord is wonderful, it is proclaiming that the parents are dedicated to raising the child in the Lord. But I believe after a person has trusted Christ, they should get baptised, as a symbolic outward profession of their faith in keeping with how the N.T. church did it. Anyway, I am not contending with Anglican beliefs, but sharing mine so we may all be enriched. I know that the baptism thing has been a big thorn in the Church for centuries, believers persecuting and even killing other believers over it, which is a shame. I hope we live in a day and age where we are free to practice our beliefs how we want and still discuss them amicably with one another.
Peace and Love,
Mike