Infant Baptism

[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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

James is essentially correct...
Anglican Baptism achieves many things Including the equivalent of the Orthodox Chrismation, during which the child is anointed with oil. which is the sealing with the holy spirit.
First it is the Baptism with water and the sign of the cross to welcome the child into the church in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.
Secondly God parents vow to bring up the Child in the knowledge of Christ and the church.
Thirdly the congregation welcomes the New member into the church and promises to sustain the child in the faith and Gods love.
The child is also anointed with oil to seal it in the holy spirit.

From this point technically a child has fulfilled all requirements to take communion.
However this will not usually take place till he is old enough to take instruction and understand the concept.

The confirmation service is to receive a person into full membership of the church, with all its obligations and duties. This is accompanied by the laying on of hands by the Bishop and receiving a blessing. During the service you are taken through the catechism and make the appropriate promises. The congregation is usually sprayed with holy water with a palm leaves and also make similar promises to sustain as in a baptism. Confirmation Unlike Baptism is not a Sacrament.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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

It is not appropriate for you to comment in this forum. However you are welcome to asks questions, and to learn from Anglicans beliefs.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Anglicans have no doubt about the destiny of the soul of an unbaptised child.
A child is totally innocent and will be received by God.

Some Anglicans have a personal belief in original sin and the consequences for a child would for those people be in doubt.

 

[spiritually inclined]

Anglicans have no doubt about the destiny of the soul of an unbaptised child.
A child is totally innocent and will be received by God.

This is much more acceptable to me than the uncertainty portrayed in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

Some Anglicans have a personal belief in original sin and the consequences for a child would for those people be in doubt.

The doctrine of original sin is not taught as an official doctrine in the Anglican church?

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This is much more acceptable to me than the uncertainty portrayed in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.



The doctrine of original sin is not taught as an official doctrine in the Anglican church?

James

It might have been at one time, even at my age I don't know. But as most churchs had roots in the ancient Catholic tradition it would seem likely.
However it is not taught now, and is not believed by any Anglican I have met.

 

[lunamoth]

The doctrine of original sin is not taught as an official doctrine in the Anglican church?

James

Hi James,

Original sin is listed as one of the 39 Articles, an historical document of the Anglican Communion. However, the 39 Articles are not a profession of faith and, for example, clergy are not made to swear belief in them before being ordained.

As Terry has said, there is probably a wide range of thinking about the doctrine of original sin throughout the Anglican Communion.

Welcome to RF and hey, have we met before?

luna

 

[lunamoth]

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

From the Anglican Catechism:

Q: Why then are infants baptized?

A: Infants are baptized so that they can share citizenship in the Covenant, membership in Christ, and redemption by God.

Q: How are the promises for infants made and carried out?

A: Promises are made for them by their parents and sponsors, who guarantee that the infants will be brought up within the Church, to know Christ and be able to follow him.

There is more from the Catechism here.

 

[joeboonda]

It is not appropriate for you to comment in this forum. However you are welcome to asks questions, and to learn from Anglicans beliefs.

Roger that, thank-you Terry. I guess I can ask a question, i was reading about how the person or baby is anointed with the oil and that seals them with the Holy Spirit if I understood it right. Do you also believe that when a person places their trust in Christ and is born-again by that act of faith that they are regenerated, indwelt, gifted and sealed by the Holy Spirit or does that happen when the oil is applied to them? I know in the USA some of the charismatic/pentecostals believe the baptising of the Holy Spirit does not happen at regeneration but as a later event, which is not what I believe, but just wondered your perspective on that...
Thanks,
Mike

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Roger that, thank-you Terry. I guess I can ask a question, i was reading about how the person or baby is anointed with the oil and that seals them with the Holy Spirit if I understood it right. Do you also believe that when a person places their trust in Christ and is born-again by that act of faith that they are regenerated, indwelt, gifted and sealed by the Holy Spirit or does that happen when the oil is applied to them? I know in the USA some of the charismatic/pentecostals believe the baptising of the Holy Spirit does not happen at regeneration but as a later event, which is not what I believe, but just wondered your perspective on that...
Thanks,
Mike

being 'borne again' is not an Anglican belief nor is it mine.
There are Charismatics in the Anglican churches though I have not come across them.
This It is actually a difficult question... as the thirty nine articles do mention being saved by faith alone...But whilst there must have been a time when the Anglicans followed the thirty nine articles... it is a very puritanical form of Anglicanism as established during the reformation. The Anglo Catholic wing of Anglicanism have always been nearer to a loose catholic stance than a strict protestant one.
The Anglo Catholic wing has been the predominate one in the UK for some many years.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Do you also believe that when a person places their trust in Christ and is born-again by that act of faith that they are regenerated, indwelt, gifted and sealed by the Holy Spirit or does that happen when the oil is applied to them?

Mike

The whole question of receiving the Holy Spirit Is interesting.
I have a somewhat heretical view, in as much as I believe it would be more difficult to avoid the Holy Spirit than to receive it.
The Holy spirit was sent by God to all men. We have the choice to accept the offer or reject it. But if we do one or the other the Holy spirit is still with us.... as a Gift.

The sealing with oil is an outward sign of Gods Gift. and is only able to be performed with oil that has been consecrated by a Bishop.

 

[joeboonda]

being 'borne again' is not an Anglican belief nor is it mine.
There are Charismatics in the Anglican churches though I have not come across them.
This It is actually a difficult question... as the thirty nine articles do mention being saved by faith alone...But whilst there must have been a time when the Anglicans followed the thirty nine articles... it is a very puritanical form of Anglicanism as established during the reformation. The Anglo Catholic wing of Anglicanism have always been nearer to a loose catholic stance than a strict protestant one.
The Anglo Catholic wing has been the predominate one in the UK for some many years.

Ok, thanks for that information. I honestly thought being born again was any Christians belief whatever the denomination, as Jesus said, "Ye must be born again." May be just difference in wording. okay, anyway thanks for the last posts!
Peace and Love,
Mike