Baptism (infant vs. adult)

[Laceylady]

I'll be honest, I didn't think I was nearly as liberal as I actually am before starting to read this board, and finding out just how much my beliefs align with liberal Christianity. I was just wondering where your guys' views of infant baptism fall?

My church practices it, as well as most liberal churches I look into. Personally, I could go either way. I don't have a problem with infant baptism, but I see it as a promise on the parents part to raise the child in a Christian home, much like a dedication or blessing in some conservative churches. I don't believe it's necessary, but then, I don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation at all. It's a sign of salvation, a promise of love and obedience, and it is important, but not necessary for salvation.

Personally, when I was confirmed at age 14 I did so because my parents told me to, not because I was giving myself to Christ. At that point I didn't really even think about God, or what my beliefs were. My parents were Lutheran, so I was Lutheran. Isn't it better to know what your promising and what you're giving your life to and what you're declaring yourself to be before doing it? In that way I believe in adult baptism...but I don't think I'll ever be baptized as an adult because I don't know of any more liberal churches that practice it (maybe some more liberal non-denom churches but everything around here is pretty conservative).

 

[Arcangl86]

The American Baptists, and some Disciples of Christ and United Church of Christ congregations, practice Believer's Baptism.

 

[hedrick]

The two forms of baptism symbolize slightly different things. Believer's baptism symbolizes our decision for Christ. Infant baptism symbolics Christ's decision for us. Both are important. I don't mmd them coexisting. But I think the question is whether children are real members of Christ's body. I think so. Faith is different at different ages, but I think someone who grows up as a Christian is a true member of Christ's body from the beginning.

 

[Sayre]

The two forms of baptism symbolize slightly different things. Believer's baptism symbolizes our decision for Christ. Infant baptism symbolics Christ's decision for us. Both are important. I don't mmd them coexisting. But I think the question is whether children are real members of Christ's body. I think so. Faith is different at different ages, but I think someone who grows up as a Christian is a true member of Christ's body from the beginning.

I've not done either - I haven't thought about it for a long time.

 

[BrotherRickG]

In that way I believe in adult baptism...but I don't think I'll ever be baptized as an adult because I don't know of any more liberal churches that practice it (maybe some more liberal non-denom churches but everything around here is pretty conservative).

To answer your question is by the mouth of Jesus; John 14:6-7 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

So if a child chooses to follow Jesus with all their heart then Baptism would be cool, if their choice is made by someone else then not so good. I was sprinkled as a Lutheran child also and I was not truly following Jesus then.

It sounds like your allegiance is with whatever a Liberal church "is" than what you think or believe Jesus would want you to do. Is that how you feel?

When I decided to give my heart and life to Jesus and get Baptized on May 25th, 1996, I couldn't wait to get rid of my old stinky flesh and show God, man and the devil whose side I was on. I think all should consider doing what is against the world and take the plunge... One more thing, following a church, preacher or style is no different than following the devil. They will tickle the ear and teach what feels good, but not necessarily what is good for the soul.

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

It can be either. I believe the greek allows for both. I am not really hardfast either way. I think if a family chooses to baptize the child and promise to raise them in a christian home then at some point in the childs life he/she will need to accept Christ as thier own. Or if as in believers baptism the family has a baby dedication promising the same thing that is cool to. It is a sacrament in most churches but I do not believe the act in itself can save anybody. Its more of a promise if a child and more of a symbol if a older person does it as it represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

I will add that all christians should be baptized as it is commanded by Christ. It should never be ignored.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I don't really think that's a liberal vs. conservative question, but something determined by what church traditions you were raised in.

 

[Qyöt27]

Like others have said, it's not actually a liberal/conservative issue. The actual theology involved is what separates the two. There might be a higher correlation with sacramental theology in the Mainline and liberal camps, but as pointed out earlier, it's not absolute.

Sacramental theology generally sees baptism as something God does, as a divine action, rather than a human action. That's the real reason why infant baptism goes hand-in-hand with it, and why churches that hold to sacramental baptism will not re-baptize someone (the rationale being, "are you saying God did it wrong the first time?"), with most recognizing the baptisms of other denominations as valid even if the denom one was baptized in isn't sacramental about it (the likeliest exception is if the first baptism wasn't Trinitarian). The divine action involved is not necessarily tied into baptismal regeneration. Note, of course, that it's not like adults are turned away if they've never been baptized (which is why I'm not referring to the practice universally as 'infant baptism'). At my cousin's Christening at an Episcopal parish, the priest made the explicit analogy that baptism:Christianity::circumcision:Judaism. You wouldn't circumcise someone twice either.

Believer's baptism is not sacramental, so that kind of weighted meaning is absent. In that scenario, it's not anything more than a symbol. It's why you'd hear it referred to as an ordinance rather than a sacrament.


Obviously, Methodists are on the sacramental side (owing to our Anglican heritage), which is why I focused on explaining it. I acknowledge that others don't necessarily believe that, and as far as what other people choose to believe about it, I remain neutral. Taking a position for or against something is best done when you know the underlying reasoning, though. The symbol part is that of being brought into the community of believers, and that holds true regardless of baptism being sacramental; it's when you ask whether baptism is anything more than a symbol that you get conflicts over when to do it.

 

[BrotherRickG]

Although Baptism is important, it is not what saves a person. It is and has always been the personal relationship with Jesus. We will never be saved by works and the physical Baptism is a works. I do think if one chooses Jesus and respects Him they should get Baptized with water to show the world whose side they are on. Sprinkled as a baby or dunked as an adult will not save anyone though, it is all in the heart of the Believer.

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

Qyot, you are right. In sacramental churches like Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, and Anglican infant baptism is used. In non-sacramental churches like Baptists, and non-denominational adult (believers baptism is used) baptism is used and it is an ordinance. And it's not really a liberal/conservative thing.

 

[SnowyMacie]

My church doesn't practice infant baptism. I don't really support it because of my views on baptism, but if it just like a dedication like we do (we have an elder pray over the child and family in a ceremonial fashion during service), than it's fine.
In the Churches of Christ, we don't see baptism as a symbolic act or even a sacrament. It's very much seen as an integral part of salvation, almost necessary. God's grace is why and how you are saved, but baptism is the moment in which you receive God's grace. I understand it a confession of faith and repentance, and acceptance of God's grace. I say almost necessary because there are circumstances where you can't become baptized, say you accept on your deathbed or die on your way to become baptized. If your acceptance was true, you would have been if you could.

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

My church doesn't practice infant baptism. I don't really support it because of my views on baptism, but if it just like a dedication like we do (we have an elder pray over the child and family in a ceremonial fashion during service), than it's fine.
In the Churches of Christ, we don't see baptism as a symbolic act or even a sacrament. It's very much seen as an integral part of salvation, almost necessary. God's grace is why and how you are saved, but baptism is the moment in which you receive God's grace. I understand it a confession of faith and repentance, and acceptance of God's grace. I say almost necessary because there are circumstances where you can't become baptized, say you accept on your deathbed or die on your way to become baptized. If your acceptance was true, you would have been if you could.

I like your signature. What you are referring to is the name it claim it stuff, God wants all good things for you and you can have whatever you ask. Yes it is a lie and is in error.

 

[hedrick]

I say almost necessary because there are circumstances where you can't become baptized, say you accept on your deathbed or die on your way to become baptized. If your acceptance was true, you would have been if you could.

I'm glad you make this provision. When I was moderator of spc.religion.christian, someone told the story of a member of a related group who got into an accident before he could be baptized. Baptism by immersion was not practical in the ICU, so he died believing he was going to go to hell because he wasn't baptized.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I like your signature. What you are referring to is the name it claim it stuff, God wants all good things for you and you can have whatever you ask. Yes it is a lie and is in error.

Thank you. I'm sorry, I don't follow, the "name it claim it stuff"?

I'm glad you make this provision. When I was moderator of spc.religion.christian, someone told the story of a member of a related group who got into an accident before he could be baptized. Baptism by immersion was not practical in the ICU, so he died believing he was going to go to hell because he wasn't baptized.

Growing up I did think that, but I was told "that's not really how it works."

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

Thank you. I'm sorry, I don't follow, the "name it claim it stuff"?



Growing up I did think that, but I was told "that's not really how it works."

Oh wow, I'm sorry. I posted this thinking I was in a different thread where they were discussing the "name it claim it" theology that some word of faith folks hold to.

 

[Jaelyn Liza]

God, as the loving Father in Heaven, has graced all His beloved children with one precious gift called the free will. Any violation of that is sin. Yes you can and are encouraged to bring up your kids in a godly way, to be radical worshipers and lovers of God, but I don't believe you can push them into the doors of Heaven by baptizing them before they can make the choice to follow Jesus with all they have and all they are. It's a decision that a person makes. God doesn't force Himself, His love or kingdom upon ANYONE.

 

[elman]

My church doesn't practice infant baptism. I don't really support it because of my views on baptism, but if it just like a dedication like we do (we have an elder pray over the child and family in a ceremonial fashion during service), than it's fine.
In the Churches of Christ, we don't see baptism as a symbolic act or even a sacrament. It's very much seen as an integral part of salvation, almost necessary. God's grace is why and how you are saved, but baptism is the moment in which you receive God's grace. I understand it a confession of faith and repentance, and acceptance of God's grace. I say almost necessary because there are circumstances where you can't become baptized, say you accept on your deathbed or die on your way to become baptized. If your acceptance was true, you would have been if you could.

My background is Church of Christ, but I no longer believe the ritual we perform and call baptism has anything to do with our inheriting eternal life. I believe the repentance that does impact on our receiving eternal life is not done with the mouth or words but is a change in our actions from being like the ones who passed by and did not help to being like the Good Samaritan that did help. Ezekiel 18 says we destroy our own soul with our own sin but if we turn from wickedness to righteousness we will live and not die. That is the repentance I think Jesus meant when He said repent or perish in Luke 13:3. When we change from being unloving to being loving, Jesus will restore us to spiritual existence. I believe that is what Jesus said must happen when He told Nicodemus we must be born again. Our rituals do not save us. Jesus did not separate the sheep from the goats in Matt 25 based on who was baptized literally in physical water. In Acts 10:34 Peter declares men from every nation is accepted if they fear God and do the right thing. Nothing there about ritual baptism. I am well aware of the various scriptures where ritual water baptism was taught and done.

 

[AGTG]

Like all things with Father God, it is our heart that matters. Baptism is an outward declaration of something that Jesus has done within your heart. True repentance and godly sorrow over our fallen state, and the subsequent joy that comes with the knowledge of Jesus' blood sacrifice, are all matters of the heart.

God designed people to mature and as they mature they are capable of abstract thinking. Babies cannot think abstractly, they don't understand about our fallen nature, they cannot make a conscious decision to follow Jesus.

This is where religious organizations have failed, assuming to keep the rosters full and initiating into their organization future generations. But this is not God's way. His way is to penetrate the heart and turn the conscience of the person towards His way and His will. It is at this place of surrender that the believe becomes converted and made alive in Christ. Their life will never be the same, and they will subsequently be eager to make this outward declaration of the work Jesus has done within them by being submerged in water to arise anew (like Jesus died, was buried, and resurrected 3 days later).

 

[camethodactor]

Speaking as a Disciples of Christ seminarian, I prefer believers (immersion) baptism to the other practices found in the church universal. I respect the soul liberty of my sisters and brothers in Christ to practice other forms of baptism. When a child of God is a baby or an infant they go through something called a baby/child dedication. In this ceremony we ask the parents or guardians of this child to agree with God's help to raise these children in the ways of the Lord with God's help as best as they are able until these children are at an age where they are able to profess Jesus as their Lord and Savior and to partake in Baptism.

When these children are of age, they elect to participate in Baptism- by being immersed- going into the waters with our Lord, to die to self and ego and raise to new life with him.

My issue with infant baptism is that infants aren't able to understand the purpose of baptism and the pledges made at ones baptism. I also take issue with infant baptism because it has the tinge of the theology of "original sin" and that children are born into sin. While we are born and made fearfully and wonderfully in the Lord's image and goodness, we have the capacity to sin- and when I look at a baby I don't see them as depraved or as sinners.