Now at the church where my mother attends, if you are a member and have a child, the child is typically baptized as an infant vs baptizing them later if you come with children who are past the infant stage to join the church.
Is there a specific reason why it is better to baptize infants vs baptizing them when they are older and know better what they are getting into?
Is there a biblical reason for baptizing infants, other than the apparent high infant mortality rate in Biblical times?
Personally I think my mom had me baptized as an infant so that I would be ‘stuck’ being a Christian my whole life (or so she thought.).
I believe, although I’m not certain, that baptism of infants usually occurs in the Catholic and more formal Protestant churches as a way of announcing to the world/church community that this child will be raised in the appropriate tradition.
I believe that infant baptism is frowned upon in the more evangelical Protestant churches since it does not mirror the meaning of baptism as set forth in the New Testament (i.e., announcing one’s decision to follow Christ).
One way is not better than the other. Protestants who baptize new believers (i.e. adult baptism) will argue, convincingly, that they have the support of scripture where baptism occurs after a confession of faith. There are accounts of entire families being baptized, but in those cases, the head of the household has become a Christian and the family was seen as an extension of him.
Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and others who practice infant baptism do not equate baptism with a personal declaration of faith. Instead, it is a sacrament whereby infants (or adults who have never been baptised) are brought into the church family. It is more of a commitment from the parents, godparents and congregation to welcome and guide this child into the Kingdom. These traditions celebrate another sacrament, Confirmation, which is done after the age of consent whereby a Christian declares their faith publicly and is commissioned for service by the Bishop (or equivalent).
Jesus commanded his disciples to baptise people, but never really came out and said why or how – hence the diversity of interpretations. As a former-Baptist and now-Anglican, it was one of the bigger issues I had to deal with. But when I realized that an Anglican baptism doesn’t mean the same thing as a Baptist baptism, I was able to reconcile to it much more easily.
I’m sure someone with better knowledge than me will come around to answer more fully.
Schoir–that’s how I see it. If you’re going to follow a certain religion or religous group of practices and get indoctrinated into that group/religion, you should have a choice instead of having the choice made for you. One should be old enough to explore all options, weigh the pros and cons of their potential choice of beliefs/religion and see if they really believe what they are getting themselves into.
See this is where my mother really got her ass in hot water, so to speak. I was baptized as an infant after she joined the church (Lutheran, to be exact) and was almost dragged kicking and screaming through the Confirmation ceremony. After going through Confirmation, I decided I didn’t want to be Confirmed after all because of some doubts I had, some unanswered questions and the like but my mother (who was only trying to do the right thing after all) twisted my arm and made me go through with it even though I had no real desire to do it.
Skammer alludes to the underlying question – and both answers are valid, depending on the premises you work from.
Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc., believe in sacramental Baptism – that God does something, through the ministry of the Church. Baptists and related “believers baptism” churches believe in “baptism as an ordinance” – that is, something Jesus commanded His followers to do. Ergo, on the first standard, you bring a child to baptism because he/she is entitled to the new life in grace given through baptism. On the “ordinance” standard, it is the response of the obedient believer when he/she comes to know Christ, done because He commanded it, as a response in faith.
There are good arguments to be made for either POV. But what ought be done is to conform to the POV into which you buy.
I guess what I don’t understand is why Catholics and their ilk don’t bother to take what the BABY might want into account. The child has no comprehension of what the heck is happening to it and why it is being baptized at all.
At least if you’re older, you’ve MADE the choice to have this happen to you and you know what’s going on.
Catholics and the “more formal Protestant churchs” (as Schoir puts it) rely on tradition in addition to Scripture. Infant Baptism is part of their tradition and has authority. For other churches, it’s not and doesn’t.
Read Skammer and others’ reply. There are different points of view and interpretations. It is not forcing a child to follow that religion forever. There is another sacrament, Confirmation, in which the older teen or adult decides to formally be part of the church.
As you said earlier, you were dragged practically kicking and screaming to Confirmation – in like manner, children in churches where adult baptism is performed are often pressured into professing faith and being baptized. All too often, these children are often pressured into professing faith and being baptized at quite young ages – I’ve seen cases where professions of faith are taken from children as young as 5 or 6 and considered valid, reasoned acceptance of the tenets of one’s faith. At this age, they do know more about what’s happening in baptism than a baby does, of course, but I’m skeptical that it’s a reasoned choice to be baptized even then.
For the same reason other parents and their ilk don’t bother to consult their baby on other life altering choices such as learning to read, potty training, or candy consumption. Whether the child has any comprehension or not the parents who baptize their infants believe it is in the child’s best interest.
IDBB, if you look at it, not as “making the kid a Christian,” but as God’s gift of grace conveyed through the ceremony (which is the sacramental view), then that puts a totally different perspective on it.
If you have a baby, you will take it to its grandparents’ house – and you’ll feel quite free to accept your parents’ or inlaws’ gift of baby clothers, layette, etc. – and the idea that you should wait until the kid’s 18 to decide whether he/she wanted those presents is pretty ridiculous.
From the “ordinance” perspective, of course (which is where you’re arguing from), it’s Grandpa giving the kid a life membership in the Loyal Order of Moose – and yeah, waiting to let the kid decide whether he wants the rights and responsibilities of being a Moose when he’s old enough is a smart idea.
In any case, the Confirmation rite gives the kid an opportunity to renew and reaffirm (or refuse to) the promises his parents may have made, when he’s old enough to make his own decisions.
(Using common gender “he/his/him” above for clarity, but it applies equally to a girl.)
Interesting point. The Roman Catholics interpret Chrismation as equivalent to confirmation, even though it is done as a part of the baptismal service, since the functions of sealing into the Body of Christ and the bestowal of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are much the same. We Episcopalians (and I believe it is common practice across the Anglican Communion, but am not certain) chrismate at baptism and have the bishop lay hands on the youth or adult with prayer for the Holy Spirit to strengthen and empower the person prayed for and defend him/her with divine grace.
Out of curiosity, is there any action, sacramental or otherwise, which an Orthodox young person or adult undertakes to affirm his/her intent to continue in the promises made at the time of baptism in his/her behalf? What would be the process if a baptized Christian of another tradition converts to Orthodoxy?
Not really, no. Orthodox youth are brought up in the life of the church, so there really isn’t a need for a special ceremony. If they want to continue in the promises made, they just continue in the promises made. (Conversely, nothing special is needed to ignore those promises – there’s no metaphysical bounds being broken, and no one is obligated to honor promises made on their behalf without their consent and authority.)
I can’t remember precisely what the position is for already-baptized converts. I believe that the previous baptism is sufficient – the person is already recognized as part of the community of the Church – although I think there may be a Confirmation ceremony for catechumens.
There is never any sort of “Confirmation” ceremony as such. Instead, if the baptism is deemed to be from an acceptable group (and, technically, any Orthodox Bishop can legitimately demand that all converts in his jurisdiction must be baptized–there is nothing automatic about accepting any non-Orthodox baptism), then the convert can be admitted via Chrismation, which is considered to “complete” the incomplete baptism.
One exception to this is that members of non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches may be admitted into many Eastern Orthodox Churches by means of a simple statement of faith, as the non-Chalcedonians are sometimes seen as schismatic but not heretical (as opposed to all the Western jurisdictions, which are seen as both).
Barb and I were both baptized in the Methodist church, and chrismated shortly after we became Episcopalians in our lat 20s (interestingly, as a part of a baptism where we stood as godparents for a not-yet-baptized young man who was a friend of ours).
I witnessed ‘re-dedications’ of kids as young as 3 and 4 one summer when I visited a Southern Baptist vacation bible school with a friend of mine. Before VBS began, they’d have a ceremony and tell kids about the Evils of Satan and following ways other than the law stated in the bible, that sort of thing. Then the kids were seperated by class group and sent off to do whatever. At the end of the night, they’d come back for more hocuspocus, fire-n-brimstone terrorizing at which point the pastor would ask for all those who’d like to get re-dedicated to come forth. Kids who could barely walk were toddling towards the altar, tear streaming down their faces, afraid if they didn’t re-dedicate their young lives to the Lord, they were all going to die and go to Hell right that second.
That’s part of the reason I was ‘put off’ of the Christian church as a whole, scare tactics like that and the fact that some churches (although arguably not all) baptize infants who cannot give consent. Somebody mentioned something about children not being able to give consent about learning to read, potty training, etc. Those things are taught to a child because the child will need to know them to be socially acceptable in the adult world. I mean…who likes to see a grown man in diapers? But baptism isn’t neccessary to be socially acceptable in the adult world or even in some churches. It is something that is generally forced up on the child, whether they want it or not, to make the parents feel more secure and to further secure the parents’ own place in the church social hierarchy.
