Infant baptism?

[eklectic]

Does anyone here know where the Methodists get the tradition of infant baptism from?

 

[silentpoet]

I am a nazarene but infant baptism came up in a class that I took before I joined this church. Well our pastor said it was not common for it to be done in the nazarene church, but he could do it. It is my assumption infant baptism came up from the catholic roots of most Christian denominations.

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

I'm guessing it comes from our Anglican roots.

Oh, looks like that was already mentioned.

 

[Morghaine]

In my years growing up in the Methodist church in my hometown, I didn't see any infant baptism, except maybe two. I think it is really up to the parent's. What I experienced (with myself, and the other youth of the church, including my daughter) is around the age of 12-13 or so, you attend confirmation class, and are baptized at the end of the class. If you were baptized previously, say as an infant, you still attend the confirmation class and reconfirm yourself to Christ and the church.

 

[ContraMundum]

It comes from the scriptures, maintained by the earllier churches and also the early Methodists.

Some classic Methodist links on baptism:

http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/31-35/31-2-9.htm

http://www.imarc.cc/baptize/ralstonbap1.htm

http://www.imarc.cc/baptize/nv15n1joemac.html

These will help.

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

Bump

My kids are going to be baptised when I transfer my memebership to the new church. I'm wondering if I can put it off until confirmation in spite of the above links and the official stance posted on the UMC website. I guess it's depends on the individual church.

And, I'm having trouble with some of the reasoning behind baptising children. Maybe someone can help me out. I understand using it as a means of welcoming children to the church community. I also understand it as an act of obedience on my part, and that by doing so I am affirming that I will bring my children up in the church community and instill Christian values at home. It makes sense that infant baptism isn't a "believer's baptism," but I am having trouble with it being an act of grace that will hopefully lead them to a new birth. Wouldn't that be covered by prevenient grace, which is available to everyone regardless of baptism?

 

[GraceSeeker]

I'm guessing it comes from our Anglican roots.

Oh, looks like that was already mentioned.

Yeah, that is definitely where it comes from.


Methodists were once Anglicans, and so we copied our pattern of infant baptism from them.

Anglicans were once Catholics and so they copied their pattern from them.

And Catholics would like to claim that they have always been the Church. But that is for another thread. Anyway, infant baptism is something that has a long history in the church and is continued across Christendom till this day. Of course there are some groups that don't recognize infant baptism, but the United Methodist Church has always done so.

But it isn't required, if parents wish to wait to have their children baptized. Personally, I encourage it as appropriate for parents who are raising their children in the church, and discourage it as inappropriate for parents who are unwilling to do so.

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

Yeah, that is definitely where it comes from.


Methodists were once Anglicans, and so we copied our pattern of infant baptism from them.

Anglicans were once Catholics and so they copied their pattern from them.

And Catholics would like to claim that they have always been the Church. But that is for another thread. Anyway, infant baptism is something that has a long history in the church and is continued across Christendom till this day. Of course there are some groups that don't recognize infant baptism, but the United Methodist Church has always done so.

But it isn't required, if parents wish to wait to have their children baptized. Personally, I encourage it as appropriate for parents who are raising their children in the church, and discourage it as inappropriate for parents who are unwilling to do so.

The pressing issue in my case is that while I am joining the church, my husband is not. I am totally on board with raising my children in the church, and DH is too actually. The problem is that it puts him in an uncomfortable situation of either not participating or participating but not taking the vows, both of which would call attention to the fact that he doesn't consider himself a Christian. This the main reason why I am thinking of putting it off.

The other reason is that I am not sure it's a necessity. Can you help me understand the concept of infant baptism as an act of grace? This is how our pastor refers to it, but I'm not getting it.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The pressing issue in my case is that while I am joining the church, my husband is not. I am totally on board with raising my children in the church, and DH is too actually. The problem is that it puts him in an uncomfortable situation of either not participating or participating but not taking the vows, both of which would call attention to the fact that he doesn't consider himself a Christian. This the main reason why I am thinking of putting it off.

The other reason is that I am not sure it's a necessity. Can you help me understand the concept of infant baptism as an act of grace? This is how our pastor refers to it, but I'm not getting it.

Well, let me first address the pastoral and practical issues you raise, with regard to the dynamics of your family, as I would in my own congregation if it were presented to me.

No. It is not a necessity. The actual fact of your son's salvation is not going to be inextricably tied to whether or not he is baptized, now or ever. While that opinion is not universally held in Christendom, we in the United Methodist Church have never taught that there was no salvation apart from baptism. Nor have we ever taught that baptism provided the assurance of one's salvation no matter what.

Here is the rather crass example I use to illustrate such a point: Let us say that a man was raised outside of the church, and late in life came to faith in Jesus Christ. Having come to faith, he seeks out the pastor and expresses a desire to be baptized. The change in his life is so dramatic that he wishes to be baptized by immersion as a creek that runs through his property. The following Sunday the whole church gathers to worship on his farm, where the baptism is going to take place. The appointed time in the service comes for it and as the man walks down to the creek, he slips on a wet rock, falls striking his head and dies. Is this man condemned to hell because he was never baptized, or was the faith he professed sufficient for salvation?

Now, I suppose that there is someone out there who would say that it is sad, but that without baptism no one can be saved. However, I do not believe that and neither the United Methodist Church nor the Methodist denominations which preceeded it have ever taught any such nonsense. So, if you son is not baptized, we are not suggesting that it has anything to do with his salvation.

On the other hand, if one truly has placed one's faith in Jesus, and remember that faith in Jeus is not just for salvation wherein we proclaim that Jesus is our Savior, but also we proclaim that Jesus is our Lord. And as Lord, we know that Jesus called his disciples to be and perform baptism ini his name. So, why would one who wishes to claim the name of Christ not seek to be baptized? I don't think that one who really professed that faith, where Christ was the most important thing in one's life would even hesitate at the thought of being baptized.

Now, as to your son, how old is he? I had the sense that he was not actually still an infant. Is he able to speak for himself, what does he say? Does he profess faith in Jesus for himself? I'm not asking if he articulates it like a seminary professor. But, appropriate for his age, does he profess faith in Christ for himself? If he is of age to express himself then perhaps mom and dad shouldn't be making the decision for him. And if he does not presently express these thoughts for himself, then you might be best to let the whole thing go till he wishes to. Keep raising him in the faith, and one of these days he will say this not just to parrot his mom, but because he has found that it is something he wishes to proclaim as part of his own life. And if he is already wanting and able to make a personal profession of faith for himself, then why hold him back?

Now, if your son is still an infant, too young to consider these issues for himself, and you intended to raise him in the church, especially if your husband is as supportive as you describe him, then I think I would just go through with having him baptized as a matter of course with your joining. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that I find it more appropriate that children raised in the faith be baptized and those not raised in the faith not be baptized. You have said that not only are you joining the church, but that you intend to raise your children in the faith and your husband (though he is not a Christian) is in agreement with you on this. You alone can present your son for baptism and your husband can stand beside you without having to affirm anything at all, other than that he is your husband.

If you take a look at the order of service for baptism in the United Methodist Hymnal, you will see that for those who are unable to speak for themselves the following questions are put to the parent(s), or whoever are the sponsors -- hint, maybe there are grandparents you could also include in this sponsoring process.

On behalf of the whole church, I ask you:
1) Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world, and repent of your sin?
2) Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves?
3) Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior, put your whole trust in his grace, and promise to serve him as your Lord, in union with the church which Christ has opened to people of all ages, nations, and races?
4) Will you nurture your son in Christ's holy church, that by your teaching and example he may be guided to accept God's grace for himself, to profess his faith openly, and to lead a Christian life?

That's it. Those four questions. If you feel like you can say "YES" to each of them, and your husband supports you in so doing (even if he can't say "YES" for himself**), then you can and probably should do it, and he can stand as near or far as the two of you feel comfortable to show the level of support he is willing to give, and he doesn't have to say a word.

But is it necessary? No.



Now, do you still want me to answer the theological part of your question?



**of course, if your husband could say "YES" for himself, then he would be ready to join the church too, as that is pretty much all one has to affirm to join the church, or at least be baptized.

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

Wow, ty for taking so much effort to answer me.

I have 2 children. My son is 6 and my daughter is 3. They have not been in church until recently so they have limited understanding of what it's all about. My son is learning but interestingly he wants nothing to do with the baptism... but I think this is just due to his being a charming 6 yr old who is used to watching Spongebob on Sunday mornings.

I can answer those questions, but my husband can't. And, because our church is in our community I think he feels that attention will be drawn to him regardless of his level of participation. And, so I while I would go through with the baptisms based on my obedience and desire to have my children be a part of the community alone, I may be looking for an excuse not to in order to save my husband some embarrassment.

As to the theology, yes I am still confused but I don't know that it makes a difference one way or another. Unless you think you can explain it in a way I'll understand.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Wow, ty for taking so much effort to answer me.

I have 2 children. My son is 6 and my daughter is 3. They have not been in church until recently so they have limited understanding of what it's all about. My son is learning but interestingly he wants nothing to do with the baptism... but I think this is just due to his being a charming 6 yr old who is used to watching Spongebob on Sunday mornings.

I can answer those questions, but my husband can't. And, because our church is in our community I think he feels that attention will be drawn to him regardless of his level of participation. And, so I while I would go through with the baptisms based on my obedience and desire to have my children be a part of the community alone, I may be looking for an excuse not to in order to save my husband some embarrassment.

As to the theology, yes I am still confused but I don't know that it makes a difference one way or another. Unless you think you can explain it in a way I'll understand.

Your son is old enough to express his own opinion. I think I would respect it. If I was your pastor, I would be happy to have you simply transfer your membership from wherever it was into our congregation as an individual act without regard to your family. I would then welcome your whole family as a living part of the life of the church without regard to membership issues. (Ask your pastor what it means to be a "constituent", this might be an appropriate "category" for your husband.) One of these days, assuming you keep your kids involved in the church, they are going to, completely on their own initiative, ask you about baptism simply because as a Christian parent you will talk about Christian beliefs and practices at home in the raising of your children, and because they will witness them in the life of the church. Let that be the teaching moment to go deeper and from that you will know whether they are ready for it themselves. For a theological paper on the United Methodist understanding of baptism By Water and The Spirit, Gayle Carlton Felton, copyright 1998, Discipleship Resources, Nashville, TN. ISBN 0-88177-201-1. Is the result of a study on baptism adopted by our 1996 General Conference. It will give you a detailed look at how United Methodists view baptism at this point in our history. (I happen to remember not being pleased with some of what I thought were new ideas incorporated into it.) I'll try to find some time tomorrow to write more about baptism as a means of grace.

from Wikepedia (which I think has it mostly right this time)

In Methodism, the means of grace are ways in which God works invisibly in disciples, quickening, strengthening and confirming faith. So, believers use them to open their hearts and lives to God's work in them. According to John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, the means of grace can be divided into two categories:



Works of Piety, such as:

Prayer,​

Searching the Scriptures,​

Holy Communion,​

[the one mistake Wikepedia made, is that all sacraments, not just Holy Communion, but also Baptism, should be listed here]​

Fasting,​

Christian Conferencing (or "community"),​

and​

Healthy Living.​

Works of Mercy, such as:

Doing Good,​

Visiting the Sick,​

Visiting the Imprisoned,​

Feeding & Clothing those in need,​

Earning, Saving, & Giving all one can,​

the Seeking of Justice,​

and​

Opposition to Slavery.​

Careful attention to the means of grace are, for Methodists, important in the process of sanctification and the seeking of Christian Perfection.

It is a little dry (OK, a lot dry), but you may find some valuable insight in John Wesley's Sermon 16, The Means of Grace http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/016.htm.

And I think the following article: Wesleyan Theology: The Sacraments as "Means of Grace" http://www.revneal.org/Writings/WesMean.htm to be a slightly easier read.

 

[RedTulipMom]

I am a nazarene but infant baptism came up in a class that I took before I joined this church. Well our pastor said it was not common for it to be done in the nazarene church, but he could do it. It is my assumption infant baptism came up from the catholic roots of most Christian denominations.

really? well just last month there were 5 infants baptized at our nazarene church. The pastor gave the parents the choice of a baby dedication or infant baptism. EVERY parent chose the baby baptism. So i guess it depends where ya live.

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

Your son is old enough to express his own opinion. I think I would respect it. If I was your pastor, I would be happy to have you simply transfer your membership from wherever it was into our congregation as an individual act without regard to your family. I would then welcome your whole family as a living part of the life of the church without regard to membership issues. (Ask your pastor what it means to be a "constituent", this might be an appropriate "category" for your husband.) One of these days, assuming you keep your kids involved in the church, they are going to, completely on their own initiative, ask you about baptism simply because as a Christian parent you will talk about Christian beliefs and practices at home in the raising of your children, and because they will witness them in the life of the church. Let that be the teaching moment to go deeper and from that you will know whether they are ready for it themselves. For a theological paper on the United Methodist understanding of baptism By Water and The Spirit, Gayle Carlton Felton, copyright 1998, Discipleship Resources, Nashville, TN. ISBN 0-88177-201-1. Is the result of a study on baptism adopted by our 1996 General Conference. It will give you a detailed look at how United Methodists view baptism at this point in our history. (I happen to remember not being pleased with some of what I thought were new ideas incorporated into it.) I'll try to find some time tomorrow to write more about baptism as a means of grace.



It is a little dry (OK, a lot dry), but you may find some valuable insight in John Wesley's Sermon 16, The Means of Grace http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/016.htm.

And I think the following article: Wesleyan Theology: The Sacraments as "Means of Grace" http://www.revneal.org/Writings/WesMean.htm to be a slightly easier read.

I think what you are saying has a lot of merit, and I will talk more with my pastor and my husband in the next few days.
TY again for helping me.
Hmm, one thing I am noticing is that the Wiki refers to it as a means of grace rather than an act of grace. Maybe I'm getting confused by semantics?
It's late so I think I will take a look at those links sometime tomorrow.

 

[cristianna]

Great responses GraceSeeker!

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

And I think the following article: Wesleyan Theology: The Sacraments as "Means of Grace" http://www.revneal.org/Writings/WesMean.htm to be a slightly easier read.

This is exactly what I was looking for!!!

Baptism

As Means of Divine Grace, Wesley understood the Sacraments as more than just outward obedience. Through the application of, or participation in, the Sacramental act, Wesley believed that Grace could be received. Hence, Wesley looked upon Baptism as: "An Outward and Visible Sign of an Inward and Spiritual Grace." In terms of his Order of Salvation, Wesley identified Baptism as the Church's external affirmation and proclamation of Prevenient Grace ... God calls us, apart from anything that we do, but we have the responsibility of response ... and that response comes in one of the Sacramentals that we will look at next week ... Confirmation.

So looking at this, I am starting to understand baptism as symbolic of prevenient grace already present, and in the case of my children the response would come later at confirmation. Am I getting close?

 

[Concetta]

That makes sense there, what you just said...

 

[ContraMundum]

This is exactly what I was looking for!!!



So looking at this, I am starting to understand baptism as symbolic of prevenient grace already present, and in the case of my children the response would come later at confirmation. Am I getting close?

Yep!

Also- our religion is for everyone, including kids.

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

Yep!

Also- our religion is for everyone, including kids.

Absolutely!

Yay, I feel like I solved some great mystery.

 

[GraceSeeker]

This discussion is one of the reasons I really like the congregational forums here. If we tried to have this same discussion on some other part of CF, or any other internet forum for that matter, there would be a couple of people who wanted to challenge the ideas being discussed. And they might have good theological reason for their position, but that wouldn't have helped you any, as you wanted to better understand this particular position. And being able to discuss it without interruption I think has made that part of the process go smoother. And certainly calmer.

 

[cristianna]

This discussion is one of the reasons I really like the congregational forums here. If we tried to have this same discussion on some other part of CF, or any other internet forum for that matter, there would be a couple of people who wanted to challenge the ideas being discussed. And they might have good theological reason for their position, but that wouldn't have helped you any, as you wanted to better understand this particular position. And being able to discuss it without interruption I think has made that part of the process go smoother. And certainly calmer.

We're a friendly and open group here.