Infant baptism is a Christian practice where babies or young children are baptized, or have water blessed, as a symbol of their entry into the faith.
Full definition
In the case
of infant baptism many of these parents want to do the right thing by their child.
A story has been going around these days to the effect that someone was asked if he believed
in infant baptism.
For instance, faith appears incompatible
with infant baptism, and the national church appears contrary to personal commitment and choice.
These thoughts on parish policy
towards infant baptism may seem somewhat controversial, especially to those clergy of the younger generation who are so convinced of the importance of preparation courses.
This led into a consideration of the Protestant views
of infant baptism and a detailed discussion of the meaning of each step in the ritual.
Too many of those who
practice infant baptism speak of it euphemistically as «christening,» «infant dedication,» as a little educative exercise to remind the parents to get the child to Sunday school, or as an insipid, cute, rosebud of an affair all full of kisses and talk that «God loves you and we love you,» hoping that the church can get its real business with the child done later in confirmation class or through an adult conversion experience.
The theological justification
for infant baptism depends on the commitment of parents and members of congregations to the task of rearing the children and youth of the church «in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.»
A Brief History of the Amish The Amish are direct descendants of the Anabaptists of 16th century Europe who
rejected infant baptism and believed in the separation of church and state (which were entirely conjoined at the time).
While a baptismal service was in progress, he arose to dispute the practice of
infant baptism as un-Biblical and proceeded to take each point from the pastor's sermon and to answer it with Baptist views.
The «gathered - church» is one stressing voluntary commitment, while the Volkskirche is one that involves membership
by infant baptism.
A Catholic baptism is valid, but only becomes effective, if someone repents and believes that he has got metaphysically connected with Christ's sacrifice by the sacramental baptism (
mostly infant baptism).
Flemington concludes that «direct historical evidence of the New Testament is insufficient to settle the question either for or
against infant baptism.»
So we argue and condemn people over the issue of
infant baptism vs. adult baptism, baptism by sprinkling vs. baptism by immersion, and whether a person should be baptized in the name of Jesus vs. in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Oddly enough, even in the discussion of
infant baptism there is no mention of original sin, and this despite the fact that the author is well acquainted with the writings of Augustine.
In reality, while the 1920s saw the start of a decline in Christian engagement, the majority of the population still attended church on Sunday and faith was a central part of community life (
infant baptism figures, for example, were around five times higher than today, even though the population was 30 % smaller, according to the Church Society).
Converted, they moved away
from infant baptism to the necessity for adult baptism as a mark of professing faith.
Can anyone
supporting infant baptism tell me where in the Bible, Book, Chapter and Verse, it is stated that Baptism was purely meant to be or exclusively done to babies.
He kept wanting to go off and talk about the baptism of the spirit, and fasting and praying, and the importance of getting water baptized, and
how infant baptism was not enough, and how we need to go to church, and pray in faith, really meaning it in our heart, and trusting God, and obeying God, and get on our knees before God, and ask God to do his will in our life, and read the Bible, etc., etc., etc..
Even those who practice
infant baptism usually excommunicate the young until confirmation, as if conceptual thinking were necessary to experience the Eucharist.
If infant baptism, the confirmation of baptismal vows, and new member rituals do not require a potential «member» to know, do, or be anything in particular, no one should be surprised that congregations lack spiritual vitality.
Although the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church and many other mainline churches
abuse infant baptism, it is yet valid.
The primary accusation against Servetus was that he
denied infant baptism and the classical conception of Trinity.
The more radical
rejected infant baptism, repudiated clerical and monastic vows, destroyed images and altars, and regarded the Lord's Supper simply as a memorial.
There was always lots of talk
about infant baptism and how, like circumcision, it was a badge or sign of one's membership in the holy community, the people of God.
I could see someone getting that feeling
with infant baptism, in which one employs supernatural forces over another, but less so with adult baptism, which whatever it is, is done to oneself.
For example, a leading Roman Catholic liturgist refers to
infant baptism as a «benign abnormality,» while an Instruction from Rome defends the practice.
These thoughts on parish policy
towards infant baptism may seem somewhat controversial, especially to those clergy of the younger generation who are so convinced of the importance of preparation...
Luther teached that a believer shall always live a life of righteousness by the power of his first baptism (
mostly infant baptism) and if he has sinned again the believer shall exercise privat confession and return to his first baptism, but not try to get righteousness by good works (to say a rosary, to do a pilgrimage, buy indulgence and the like).
Bonhoeffer follows a Lutheran position
on infant baptism, in which faith is located by proxy in the congregation rather than the infant.