Infant baptism

[ChiRho]

To the advocates of believers' Baptism,

How can one be sure that they "fully" grasp the meaning of Holy Baptism before being Baptized, and how is one assured that they received it perfectly?

It seems to me, as I have been following this thread, that people have been arguing that Baptism's validity rests in the one being Baptized, instead of God. If this is the case, how could anyone be sure that their Baptism was valid?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[SonOfThunder]

WOW! At my (southern baptist) church i just had to wait til the following sunday.... with a brief meeting with the pastor before hand.

wow, in the Jehovah's Witnesses you have to know what they stand for and undergo several weeks of knowledge. To be baptised you need to know the grass roots of what the belief is.

a girl at church got saved and will be baptised very quickly, I am trying to understand this as she had no Bible background.


James

 

[Crazy Liz]

To the advocates of believers' Baptism,

How can one be sure that they "fully" grasp the meaning of Holy Baptism before being Baptized, and how is one assured that they received it perfectly?

It seems to me, as I have been following this thread, that people have been arguing that Baptism's validity rests in the one being Baptized, instead of God. If this is the case, how could anyone be sure that their Baptism was valid?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

I don't think I've ever heard a Baptist or Anabaptist use the word "validity" in connection with baptism. I don't think "valid" and "invalid" are categories that even come into play WRT the Baptist or Anabaptist view of baptism. ISTM, "valid" is a legal term having to do with whether or not a legal act confers a particular legal status. If it is sufficiently defective, it is considered invalid, and does not confer the legal status. For example, a legal marriage requires the consent of the bride and groom, each of whom is eligible to marry, and certain formalities that vary from time to time and place to place. If the bride or groom is already married to someone else (assuming only one marriage at a time is allowed) the marriage may later be declared invalid. Although it appeared to affect the status of the bride and groom as a married couple, in reality it did not because of a fatal defect. Baptists and Anabaptists do not view baptism as conferring a legal status, so the concept of validity does not really apply to it.

It's an interesting concept. I don't know whether anyone else might have something different to say about this.

 

[Crazy Liz]

WOW! At my (southern baptist) church i just had to wait til the following sunday.... with a brief meeting with the pastor before hand.

On this theme, it might be helpful to point out that practices in the early church varied quite a bit. While Acts records many converts being baptized immediately, it seems that by the second century a two-year catechumenate for new converts had become the norm. This period of instruction could be decreased in length for good reasons. For example, if it appeared that a catechumen was about to die, baptism would be administered even though the normal requirements had not been met.

Yet at the same time, infant baptism was also being practiced. It seems that practices varied widely, and there is little or no evidence of arguments among the church fathers about the age of baptism or the length of the catechumenate. Variety seems to have been widely accepted.

 

[ZiSunka]

wow, in the Jehovah's Witnesses you have to know what they stand for and undergo several weeks of knowledge. To be baptised you need to know the grass roots of what the belief is.

a girl at church got saved and will be baptised very quickly, I am trying to understand this as she had no Bible background.


James

You don't have to know the Bible, just the Savior!

 

[Crazy Liz]

I'd like to clarify what I said about validity, for the benefit of Chi Rho and anyone else. I thought of a more succinct way of saying what I said above.

For Baptists and Anabaptists, the value of baptism is purely subjective. Therefore, objective categories like "valid" and "invalid" are irrelevant to baptism.

 

[ZiSunka]

I would say that baptism done to fulfill a religious obligation or done without the understanding of its meaning on the part of the person baptized is not in keeping with Christ's commandment to make disciples and baptize them, so it could in effect, be "invalid." I think the notion that baptism is a meaningless ritual done to make the person feel better is definitely invalid. Baptism is a commandment of Christ, not meaningless or optional, and not something done just to get it out of the way.

It does not confer salvation, but it is done as a blessing in the sense that the person baptized is blessed and the people who are in the baptizing congregation are blessed by it.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

a girl at church got saved and will be baptised very quickly, I am trying to understand this as she had no Bible background.


James

Niether did the Gentiles!
HA. That is how simple is it suppose to be. AMEN and GLORY be to God!

 

[ChiRho]

I don't think I've ever heard a Baptist or Anabaptist use the word "validity" in connection with baptism. I don't think "valid" and "invalid" are categories that even come into play WRT the Baptist or Anabaptist view of baptism. ISTM, "valid" is a legal term having to do with whether or not a legal act confers a particular legal status. If it is sufficiently defective, it is considered invalid, and does not confer the legal status. For example, a legal marriage requires the consent of the bride and groom, each of whom is eligible to marry, and certain formalities that vary from time to time and place to place. If the bride or groom is already married to someone else (assuming only one marriage at a time is allowed) the marriage may later be declared invalid. Although it appeared to affect the status of the bride and groom as a married couple, in reality it did not because of a fatal defect. Baptists and Anabaptists do not view baptism as conferring a legal status, so the concept of validity does not really apply to it.

It's an interesting concept. I don't know whether anyone else might have something different to say about this.

I was using "validity" in the sense of which party, God or man, makes Baptism Baptism. More in the sense of "genuineness". The previous posts were dealing with which methods are correct to allow for a correct Baptism. Questions such as "should the sinner be cognizant?" "How much (or little) instruction should be given to the catechumen?" are all questions dealing with proper modes of Baptism, are they not? And in that, the underlying question is "What is Baptism and what (or who or Who) makes Baptism Baptism?" Correct?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[Crazy Liz]

I was using "validity" in the sense of which party, God or man, makes Baptism Baptism. More in the sense of "genuineness". The previous posts were dealing with which methods are correct to allow for a correct Baptism. Questions such as "should the sinner be cognizant?" "How much (or little) instruction should be given to the catechumen?" are all questions dealing with proper modes of Baptism, are they not?

Yes, but propriety or regularity do not necessarily affect validity, if validity is an issue Note that the questions above have all been framed in terms of "should," not in terms of "must."

And in that, the underlying question is "What is Baptism and what (or who or Who) makes Baptism Baptism?" Correct?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

A Catholic might well disagree with a Baptist or Anabaptist about this. As I said before, Baptists and Anabaptists hold that the value of baptism is entirely subjective. It is for this reason (although there are other, closely related rationales) that infant baptism is not practiced. It is not possible for this subjective effect to exist when the person is unaware of it, as an infant.

Some Baptists and Anabaptists have said that if the subjective intent on the part of the person being baptized is absent, the person "does not get baptized, but just gets wet." OTOH, if the subjective intent is present, but there is some irregularity (for example, baptism by sprinkling or pouring, rather than by immersion) most Baptists and Anabaptists would just say it was an irregular baptism. Because the subjective aspect is emphasized, such a person may, for the sake of others who might be offended by the irregularity, go through a second baptism to regularize it. People might argue about which of these was the person's "real" baptism, but if you were to ask a theologically sophisticated Baptist or Anabaptist, they will generally say either that the person's "real" baptism was the first one with the subjective intent, and the second was a reaffirmation in regular form, or may give some other rationale, but probably they really would think the whole question was just a silly speculation. To say one must be "real" or "valid" and the other not would imply something objectively happens, and
Baptists and Anabaptists do not believe anything objectively happens by baptism.

 

[Snow Angel]

Quote#2.Since I don't believe baptism is regenerative or necessary for salvation.John the baptist, baptised Jesus,And if it good enough for him ,It's good enough fo me.

 

[ZiSunka]

To the advocates of believers' Baptism,

How can one be sure that they "fully" grasp the meaning of Holy Baptism before being Baptized, and how is one assured that they received it perfectly?

It seems to me, as I have been following this thread, that people have been arguing that Baptism's validity rests in the one being Baptized, instead of God. If this is the case, how could anyone be sure that their Baptism was valid?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

I think that adults, as a whole, have the capacity to understand that baptism is a symbol of beginning a new life in Christ, but infants do not. I'm not sure what you mean by "receive it perfectly." Those words don't have any meaning in relation to baptism. It's not something we receive, it's something we do to demonstrate our desire to follow Christ, who also was baptized as an adult, not an infant.

Baptism's validity does indeed rest upon the one being baptized, because that person has to make the conscious decision to leave behind their old life and start a new one. Babies don't need to start a new life, because they just started life, period. They have no sins to repent of, to put under the blood of Christ, and they don't have the capicity to understand the concept of substitution or redemption. Adults do, and that's why we don't baptize babies, only older children and adults who have professed saving faith in Christ.

Remember, baptism is not a magic trick in which our sins disappear while we are underwater, it is a ceremony of testimony that we have accepted the truth that we are sinners and Christ is the only way we can be forgiven.

 

[plastinationchild]

babies cant think.

 

[theseed]

I don't think I've ever heard a Baptist or Anabaptist use the word "validity" in connection with baptism. I don't think "valid" and "invalid" are categories that even come into play WRT the Baptist or Anabaptist view of baptism. ISTM, "valid" is a legal term having to do with whether or not a legal act confers a particular legal status. If it is sufficiently defective, it is considered invalid, and does not confer the legal status. For example, a legal marriage requires the consent of the bride and groom, each of whom is eligible to marry, and certain formalities that vary from time to time and place to place. If the bride or groom is already married to someone else (assuming only one marriage at a time is allowed) the marriage may later be declared invalid. Although it appeared to affect the status of the bride and groom as a married couple, in reality it did not because of a fatal defect. Baptists and Anabaptists do not view baptism as conferring a legal status, so the concept of validity does not really apply to it.

It's an interesting concept. I don't know whether anyone else might have something different to say about this.

"Valid" is s term that can be used validly and not be refering to legal issues. In fact, it is a statistical/psychological term has well. It can also be used of somebody who has physical disablilities, such as an invalid (pronounced short vowels, in-vil-id).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=valid

 

[Crazy Liz]

"Valid" is s term that can be used validly and not be refering to legal issues. In fact, it is a statistical/psychological term has well. It can also be used of somebody who has physical disablilities, such as an invalid (pronounced short vowels, in-vil-id).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=valid

OK. Can you apply one of those definitions to baptism?

 

[ChiRho]

Yes, but propriety or regularity do not necessarily affect validity, if validity is an issue Note that the questions above have all been framed in terms of "should," not in terms of "must."

Do you believe that there is any objective criteria for Holy Baptism?

A Catholic might well disagree with a Baptist or Anabaptist about this. As I said before, Baptists and Anabaptists hold that the value of baptism is entirely subjective. It is for this reason (although there are other, closely related rationales) that infant baptism is not practiced. It is not possible for this subjective effect to exist when the person is unaware of it, as an infant.

So, are you asserting that "infant Baptism" is an incorrect Baptism and therefore not Baptism at all? How, if self-awareness is the key, are we sure that we, as an individual, are fully aware of Baptism? If we are pledging ourselves to follow Christ and Baptism is this outward pledge, what happens when we sin? Do we return to the Font and try to make this pledge again...and again...and again? If we do not, are we liars or frauds?

Lutherans think of sin in terms of sickness or an infection that acts out through our faculties and results in actual sins, but the real problem, the source of our sin is our perverted nature. For us, such a pledge, would be a hollow, empty promise that we could not and would not keep.

Some Baptists and Anabaptists have said that if the subjective intent on the part of the person being baptized is absent, the person "does not get baptized, but just gets wet." OTOH, if the subjective intent is present, but there is some irregularity (for example, baptism by sprinkling or pouring, rather than by immersion) most Baptists and Anabaptists would just say it was an irregular baptism. Because the subjective aspect is emphasized, such a person may, for the sake of others who might be offended by the irregularity, go through a second baptism to regularize it. People might argue about which of these was the person's "real" baptism, but if you were to ask a theologically sophisticated Baptist or Anabaptist, they will generally say either that the person's "real" baptism was the first one with the subjective intent, and the second was a reaffirmation in regular form, or may give some other rationale, but probably they really would think the whole question was just a silly speculation. To say one must be "real" or "valid" and the other not would imply something objectively happens, and
Baptists and Anabaptists do not believe anything objectively happens by baptism.

So Holy Baptism is essentially meaningless? Just wondering if I got the gist of what you said.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[ZiSunka]

So Holy Baptism is essentially meaningless? Just wondering if I got the gist of what you said.

This is a popular way of thinking right now, based mostly on a misinterpretation of the teachings of Charles Stanley, but no, baptism is not meaningless. It doesn't confer redemption or salvation, but it's not meaningless either. It has value in that it is a public declaration of leaving the old life of sin and beginning the new life of dedication to God.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." 2Co 5:17

Babies can't start a new life of dedication to God because they are unable to fathom their lost condition and choose to turn their lives over and become new creations.

 

[theseed]

OK. Can you apply one of those definitions to baptism?

Yes, a baptism can be illigitiment if if is not biblical. The Bible teaches that we only enters God's covenant of grace by a renewed heart. And how do we know that? Based on a profession of faith. Everybody that is baptized in the book of Acts believes first, and then is baptism. So, if we don't baptize the right way, then we are not being obediant to our Lord's command. Therefore, baptism must be a valid baptism.

 

[ZiSunka]

After doing a search of the Bible, I cannot find one instance of infant baptism, or of anyone being baptized without first having made an expression of faith.

Furthermore, the basis of baptism is the cleansing wash that was done by people to complete periods of time in which they were "unclean" spiritually. It was a command to adults, not infants.

 

[BT]

Oh I know what they'll pull out now.... the old "whole household" argument