Teach me about Paedobaptism

[Greenlee]

Well, this is a reach.

I'm here for one specific question. I'm a baptist missionary, but don't let that throw you. I consider myself more strongly Presbyterian in theology, however, quite Anglican in ecclesiology, which is really messing with my head since I'm working in West Africa in support of a "baptistic" church planting ministry. Albeit, my involvement in church planting is indirect since my primary role is as a medical missionary.

So, maybe it's just because of what I choose to read, but recently, and for the last several months, coming to know several African Anglican clergy in the region, I'm coming to grips with the fact that I'm starting to find Anglicanism far more attractive than our sort of baptist-lite denominational distinctives here.

That being said, the one thing I just can not come to grips with is paedobaptism. I admit, I haven't spent much time on my own researching this, and I really want to hear, from an Anglican perspective, what compels the church to continue in this tradition?

Full disclosure, I kind of want to be convinced of it, because I grew up confused between my dad's Lutheran background and my mom's Charismatic background. I have grown more than a little dissatisfied with the state of evangelicalism, specifically the more charismatic streams, and mainline denominations are seeming more compelling these days.

If you don't want to comment with a justification for it, no problem. I would be quite pleased with any book suggestions that might help me better understand the biblical justification for paedobaptism.

Thank you,

Zach

 

[Albion]

Hi, and welcome. I am most impressed by the realization that the NT indicates that whole households were baptized and, also, that the usual baptistic "proofs" of immersion are not sound. Beyond that, of course, are the differences about the meaning of Baptism, etc.

 

[Shimokita]

Well, this is a reach.

I'm here for one specific question. I'm a baptist missionary, but don't let that throw you. I consider myself more strongly Presbyterian in theology, however, quite Anglican in ecclesiology, which is really messing with my head since I'm working in West Africa in support of a "baptistic" church planting ministry. Albeit, my involvement in church planting is indirect since my primary role is as a medical missionary.

So, maybe it's just because of what I choose to read, but recently, and for the last several months, coming to know several African Anglican clergy in the region, I'm coming to grips with the fact that I'm starting to find Anglicanism far more attractive than our sort of baptist-lite denominational distinctives here.

That being said, the one thing I just can not come to grips with is paedobaptism. I admit, I haven't spent much time on my own researching this, and I really want to hear, from an Anglican perspective, what compels the church to continue in this tradition?

Full disclosure, I kind of want to be convinced of it, because I grew up confused between my dad's Lutheran background and my mom's Charismatic background. I have grown more than a little dissatisfied with the state of evangelicalism, specifically the more charismatic streams, and mainline denominations are seeming more compelling these days.

If you don't want to comment with a justification for it, no problem. I would be quite pleased with any book suggestions that might help me better understand the biblical justification for paedobaptism.

Thank you,

Zach

Do you believe in baptismal regeneration, or the more “symbolic only” view of baptism?

If you believe in regeneration I think infant baptism logically concludes. If not, I don’t see what the point of baptizing infants would be.

 

[Greenlee]

Hi, and welcome. I am most impressed by the realization that the NT indicates that whole households were baptized and, also, that the usual baptistic "proofs" of immersion are not sound. Beyond that, of course, are the differences about the meaning of Baptism, etc.

Thank you! Would you be willing to expand a little bit on different meanings of baptism as they apply to your specific understanding of what baptism is?

 

[Greenlee]

Do you believe in baptismal regeneration, or the more “symbolic only” view of baptism?

If you believe in regeneration I think infant baptism logically concludes. If not, I don’t see what the point of baptizing infants would be.

I tend to see it more as an act of obedience, but mostly symbolic of new birth, and a public proclamation as such. I can be convinced otherwise, though, I think.

 

[Shimokita]

I tend to see it more as an act of obedience, but mostly symbolic of new birth, and a public proclamation as such. I can be convinced otherwise, though, I think.

Well I think that is the first issue that needs to be resolved. I suggest just taking an evening and reading through the New Testament with an open mind. I really don’t see much support for a purely symbolic view, myself.

 

[Greenlee]

Well I think that is the first issue that needs to be resolved. I suggest just taking an evening and reading through the New Testament with an open mind. I really don’t see much support for a purely symbolic view, myself.

Well, my friend, I've done that, and that led me here to ask my Anglican brothers and sisters to help me. I didn't really intend to come here to justify my own understanding, because I'm trying to have an open mind about this.

We have read the same thing and come to different conclusions. I just want to hear the why from someone who has really thought this through better than I have managed to. I have no intention to argue or debate, this is purely inquiry. (I know, maybe the first time ever on the internet!) Thanks, friend.

 

[Shimokita]

Well, my friend, I've done that, and that led me here to ask my Anglican brothers and sisters to help me. I didn't really intend to come here to justify my own understanding, because I'm trying to have an open mind about this.

We have read the same thing and come to different conclusions. I just want to hear the why from someone who has really thought this through better than I have managed to. I have no intention to argue or debate, this is purely inquiry. (I know, maybe the first time ever on the internet!) Thanks, friend.

Thanks. Didn’t actually realize that this is the Anglican forum, so I am not going to offer any more of my own views here.

 

[Greenlee]

The Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes the conslusions I've reached about baptism well. That is to say, I do not think that it is purely symbolic, and would agree that that would be a rather liberal reading of scripture to conclude it as such, but it is a symbol, as well as a seal.

Here's how the reformers summarized it:

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life….Although it is a great sin to contemn [sic] or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Hope that clears up my current understanding of baptism up to this point.

 

[Greenlee]

Thanks. Didn’t actually realize that this is the Anglican forum, so I am not going to offer any more of my own views here.

I'm still interested in what you have to say. What denomination to you come from?

 

[Shimokita]

I'm still interested in what you have to say. What denomination to you come from?

You can ask in another forum. I’ll get reported if I keep posting here, sorry. Good luck.

 

[Greenlee]

You can ask in another forum. I’ll get reported if I keep posting here, sorry. Good luck.

oh... haha... rules. So many rules. Very baptistic. Good day, friend.

 

[Albion]

Thank you! Would you be willing to expand a little bit on different meanings of baptism as they apply to your specific understanding of what baptism is?

It is a proclamation and it makes one a member of the community of Christs church, but it also imparts grace, we believe. It is that last point which seems to be the most offensive to Baptists.

That said, and skimpy as it is, I do not think it would be fair to you to make this be a two man conversation. There are some very well-informed and nice Anglican people on this forum, and I know that they will contribute a great deal to the discussion. Let us give it a little time until we see if some of them do not check in an offer their own thoughts.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Do you believe in baptismal regeneration, or the more “symbolic only” view of baptism?

If you believe in regeneration I think infant baptism logically concludes. If not, I don’t see what the point of baptizing infants would be.

Or baptizing anyone, for that matter.

I've run across quite a few who say that baptism is a public testimony of your faith, but there's nothing in the Bible or early church history to support this, as baptisms, following the precedent of the Jewish mikeveh, were in semi-privacy.

 

[Paidiske]

I think perhaps the way I can most easily explain it is to say; who is doing something in baptism?

Are we the primary agent, doing something to/for God? Or is God the primary agent, at work in us?

A sacramental view tends to the latter; to say that in baptism God is working in us; and therefore, the grace of baptism doesn't depend on the cognitive maturity of the person receiving it.

(This last an important point not just for paedobaptism; else are we saying that those who have significant intellectual disability - such that they will never make the kind of personal statement of faith a Baptist might look for - are beyond God's grace?)

 

[Arcangl86]

The Bible isn't the clearest when it comes to this issue, and i think you can make a good faith argument in both directions. But I think there is slightly more evidence to support at least the option of baptizing children and others who might be limited mentally for any number of reasons. In Acts there are references to entire households being baptized, which would include both adults and children. But then you also get into Paul's letters and it's obvious that he believes something supernatural happens during Baptism.

Anglicans come out of the Reformed tradition originally, and while our Articles of Religion aren't as comprehensive as the Westminster confession there are some similarities. One of which is that we do believe that baptism is both a sign of grace, but also a means of grace. The action of baptism is done by God, not by us. Baptists have baptisms to show they choose to receive Christ and have been saved. We do it to acknowledge that God's grace is freely offered to us and that we do not need to do anything special to receive it.

This link has the Articles of Religion, both in the original and modernized English. Church Society - 39 Articles - 25-31

 

[FireDragon76]

I think perhaps the way I can most easily explain it is to say; who is doing something in baptism?

Are we the primary agent, doing something to/for God? Or is God the primary agent, at work in us?

A sacramental view tends to the latter; to say that in baptism God is working in us; and therefore, the grace of baptism doesn't depend on the cognitive maturity of the person receiving it.

(This last an important point not just for paedobaptism; else are we saying that those who have significant intellectual disability - such that they will never make the kind of personal statement of faith a Baptist might look for - are beyond God's grace?)

Ok, I want to hear it straight from the source... do Anglicans believe baptism is an effectual means of grace, or merely that it's a "sign and seal", but that God's grace operates invisibly and mysteriously only in those who have been elected? The Goram decision in England in the mid-19th century seems to indicate denying effectual baptismal regeneration is perfectly acceptable, at least in the Church of England. So, could you clarify your perspective?

 

[Paidiske]

From the 39 Articles:

"SACRAMENTS ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him."

 

[Shimokita]

Ok, I want to hear it straight from the source... do Anglicans believe baptism is an effectual means of grace, or merely that it's a "sign and seal", but that God's grace operates invisibly and mysteriously only in those who have been elected? The Goram decision in England in the mid-19th century seems to indicate denying effectual baptismal regeneration is perfectly acceptable, at least in the Church of England. So, could you clarify your perspective?

Yeah I was surprised by the posts here. I was under the impression that most Anglicans rejected baptismal regeneration, but that appears to be incorrect.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Baptism is a public acknowledgement of membership of the church.

Baptism is always preceded by faith, either the person’s own faith, or the faith of believing parents.

Baptismal regeneration is not a thing as clearly that does not happen.