Infant baptism in PCUSA

[nstoddar]

I was curious if anybody had experience with infant baptism in the PCUSA denomination. We attend a "conservative" church, at least in terms of homosexuality, but their views on infant baptism are very wishy-washy. Some of the times they'll go out of their way to make sure everybody knows that they're doing an infant "dedication" (I'm assuming at the request of the parents) -- the rest of the time it's an infant "baptism", although they don't actually seem to know why they're doing it at all (besides for the baby book). I can't help but feel that the sacrament is tarnished by their inability to follow a given confession (I guess the WCF). Really they're very soft on all the Presbyterian aspects -- predestination, infant baptism, and on and on. What's left after a church ceases to be confessional, covenantal and creedal? Anybody else out there know what I'm talking about? Anyways, I'm tempted to baptize her myself just so I can verbalize what I feel is important about the whole thing. But then I think be making things worse by having a meaningful/correct private baptism instead of a public watered-down baptism. Maybe I'm just taking this whole thing too seriously -- I seem to be the only one these days.

 

[realtruth101]

I was curious if anybody had experience with infant baptism in the PCUSA denomination. We attend a "conservative" church, at least in terms of homosexuality, but their views on infant baptism are very wishy-washy. Some of the times they'll go out of their way to make sure everybody knows that they're doing an infant "dedication" (I'm assuming at the request of the parents) -- the rest of the time it's an infant "baptism", although they don't actually seem to know why they're doing it at all (besides for the baby book). I can't help but feel that the sacrament is tarnished by their inability to follow a given confession (I guess the WCF). Really they're very soft on all the Presbyterian aspects -- predestination, infant baptism, and on and on. What's left after a church ceases to be confessional, covenantal and creedal? Anybody else out there know what I'm talking about? Anyways, I'm tempted to baptize her myself just so I can verbalize what I feel is important about the whole thing. But then I think be making things worse by having a meaningful/correct private baptism instead of a public watered-down baptism. Maybe I'm just taking this whole thing too seriously -- I seem to be the only one these days.

Can you tell me what baptism is supposed to represent in light of scripture, what does baptism mean?

 

[nstoddar]

Can you tell me what baptism is supposed to represent in light of scripture, what does baptism mean?

It wasn't my intention to debate infant baptism, but to get advice on dealing with the issue in a Presbyterian church that didn't hold true to its confessions. Your icon says you are "Faith: Other-Church", so I'm not sure what background you're coming from. You'll have to forgive me if I'm assuming too much from your response. If you're interested in learning more about Presbyterian beliefs, you can do a search in the forum like I did. Sorry again if I misread you--the Internet's full of people that like to argue.

 

[Evenstar253]

At my old PCUSA church, infant baptism was just a given. I didn't realize there was controversy within the denomination over the subject. *shrug*

 

[realtruth101]

It wasn't my intention to debate infant baptism, but to get advice on dealing with the issue in a Presbyterian church that didn't hold true to its confessions. Your icon says you are "Faith: Other-Church", so I'm not sure what background you're coming from. You'll have to forgive me if I'm assuming too much from your response. If you're interested in learning more about Presbyterian beliefs, you can do a search in the forum like I did. Sorry again if I misread you--the Internet's full of people that like to argue.

Well I certainly am not trying to start any arguement, you have stated your being upset with things done in regard to your Presbyterian faith, conserning the baptism of infants and my only question was, what does the bible say as to why baptism is done, and what is the meaning of it. Why would that statement seem to rub you the wrong way, I'm pretty sure Presbyterians believe the bible is the word of God, inerrant and a good and faithful guide for all doctrine, The Bible being true thats my faith background its where I'm coming from. Could it be your upset more over a tradition not being held up or is it a failure to keep the church in its biblical doctrinal foundation thats bothering you.

 

[nstoddar]

At my old PCUSA church, infant baptism was just a given. I didn't realize there was controversy within the denomination over the subject. *shrug*

It could just be our church. They're one of a handful of churches that appeals to "younger" types because of the music and style of worship. In turn, I think they pull a lot of people with non-denominational and baptist backgrounds. So consequently, they end up trying to be all to all men by not having a hard stance or belief on anything (mostly). It does seem to be up for debate here though. I think people can't handle the idea that God's deciding where they're going to go. Or I guess since it's Christians having problems with it, they can't handle the idea that God's deciding where their friends and family are going to go.

 

[nstoddar]

Well I certainly am not trying to start any arguement, you have stated your being upset with things done in regard to your Presbyterian faith, conserning the baptism of infants and my only question was, what does the bible say as to why baptism is done, and what is the meaning of it. Why would that statement seem to rub you the wrong way, I'm pretty sure Presbyterians believe the bible is the word of God, inerrant and a good and faithful guide for all doctrine, The Bible being true thats my faith background its where I'm coming from. Could it be your upset more over a tradition not being held up or is it a failure to keep the church in its biblical doctrinal foundation thats bothering you.

I think it's about the biblical doctrinal foundation. I agree with the Westminster Confession that the sacrament of baptism should be done (amongst other reasons) as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and that it should be extended to infants of believing parents. So it's not the tradition I'm bugged about. It's a Presbyterian church that includes the Westminster Confession in the Book of Confessions, but waivers on the issue. There are plenty of denominations out there that don't include infant baptism, but at least they're doing what they're saying. My church says one thing and does another. Which normally wouldn't matter, except for the fact that I have a little girl I want baptized.

 

[realtruth101]

I think it's about the biblical doctrinal foundation. I agree with the Westminster Confession that the sacrament of baptism should be done (amongst other reasons) as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and that it should be extended to infants of believing parents. So it's not the tradition I'm bugged about. It's a Presbyterian church that includes the Westminster Confession in the Book of Confessions, but waivers on the issue. There are plenty of denominations out there that don't include infant baptism, but at least they're doing what they're saying. My church says one thing and does another. Which normally wouldn't matter, except for the fact that I have a little girl I want baptized.

I don't want to bug you, but do realize that Romans 4:11 is the scripture used to convince the baptism is as a sign and a seal of the covenant of grace, I'm only asking because its one of your doctrinal faiths that you believe and hold dear and I was hoping you could help me understand why scriptures based on Abrahams circumcision, would be used and not the many scriptures such as Romans 6:3-14 I only question this because its always strange to me when doctrine is created from scriptures that have nothing to do with doctrine being built such as baptism in this case, why these men would use passages about circumcision and other old testiment rituals has always baffled me, I've just read the Westminister confession on baptism and It didn't use any of the passages that Paul taught on what baptism means and why its done. doesn't this seem a bit odd to you. If you were going to make a dress wouldn't it seem logical you would use a pattern of a dress to make it, rather than a pattern of a man's jacket......call me strange but I find that rather peculiar

 

[nstoddar]

I don't want to bug you, but do realize that Romans 4:11 is the scripture used to convince the baptism is as a sign and a seal of the covenant of grace, I'm only asking because its one of your doctrinal faiths that you believe and hold dear and I was hoping you could help me understand why scriptures based on Abrahams circumcision, would be used and not the many scriptures such as Romans 6:3-14 I only question this because its always strange to me when doctrine is created from scriptures that have nothing to do with doctrine being built such as baptism in this case, why these men would use passages about circumcision and other old testiment rituals has always baffled me, I've just read the Westminister confession on baptism and It didn't use any of the passages that Paul taught on what baptism means and why its done. doesn't this seem a bit odd to you. If you were going to make a dress wouldn't it seem logical you would use a pattern of a dress to make it, rather than a pattern of a man's jacket......call me strange but I find that rather peculiar

Are you sure you're not here to argue?

 

[hedrick]

There's no controversy in the PCUSA, as far as I know. Consistent with our Reformed heritage, we believe that baptism is a sign of the fact that God chooses us before we're in any position to do anything, applying Christ's death to us, and incorporating us into his body, the covenant people. That is, the Reformed tradition, baptism is a sign of God's decision for us, rather than our decision for him.

Obviously there are no baptism police checking on individual congregations, but if the Session minutes don't report these as infant baptisms (i.e. if they say something like "dedications") I'd expect questions to be asked at the next annual review of Session minutes by the Presbytery.

If parents didn't want to present their children for baptism, I don't think we'd force them. When the child is old enough for confirmation, they would be received by believer's baptism. But I've never heard of dedicating a child without baptizing them. That's just weird.

Technically such a child would not be eligible for communion, which I think would present a problem. The Book of Order says that as soon as the child expresses interest in communion, we're supposed to supply the necessary training. Usually that happens in the early elementary school grades. I believe last time we did the training, we did ask if the kids were baptized. If the parents refused I'm not sure what we'd do. We'd be reluctant to excommunicate a kid for something their parents did, so we'd probably tactfully lean on the parents. But I'm not aware that it's ever happened in our church.

 

[RisingSpirit]

That is, the Reformed tradition, baptism is a sign of God's decision for us, rather than our decision for him.

Does the PCUSA teach salvation the way John Calvin saw in the Bible and not the way John Wesley saw in the Bible. Are the PCUSA still more towards Calvinism and away from arminianism or do they teach sometime else?