Teach me about Paedobaptism

[Deegie]

Zach, first off, welcome to STR. And may God richly bless your missionary work!

My fellow Anglicans have given some good responses. I would like to address your question from more of an ecclesiological perspective. We see baptism as the full initiation into the Church - the "household of God" as the 1979 BCP calls it at one point. Whatever may or may not happen vis a vis baptismal regeneration or original sin, none of us magically became perfect creatures when the water was sprinkled on our foreheads. We all have to live into our baptism, meaning that it is a life-long process of seeking God and hopefully increasing in holiness of life. That is just as open to infants as it is to adults. The godparents quite literally make the promises on behalf of the child and the entire community is expected to help him or her grow in the faith. Denying baptism until some arbitrary age would suggest that they are not really members of the church community until that time. And that's not a message I would like to send them.

 

[PloverWing]

This discussion has brought to mind something that's bugged me for the entire 30+ years that I've been Episcopalian: the combination of Baptismal Vows with infant baptism.

I can see several views of baptism that are consistent with the liturgy of baptism as we practice it:

1) Baptism as a commitment to God: In the sacrament of matrimony, a couple makes vows to one another, and they receive the blessing of the church, and in this rite they receive grace from God to help them in their marriage. Similarly, an adult or older child being baptized makes a commitment to God by taking the Baptismal Vows and being baptized, and God gives that person grace to sustain them in their new life in Christ. (This view appeals to me, as I am a former Baptist.)

2) Baptism as God's unconditional outpouring of grace: Infant baptism can be seen as an image of the way in which God's grace comes to us unconditionally, when we are not even capable of choosing God. God's saving grace is given to this infant who cannot choose or merit God in any way. (My priest, a former Presbyterian, leans this way. I'm close enough to a universalist to appreciate it.)

3) Baptism as a promise to raise the child in the Christian faith: This is something like Deegie's view, expressed above. God gives grace to the infant at the very beginning of life, and the child will grow gradually into the Christian faith, with the support of the parents, godparents, and church community. (I can appreciate this role of baptism as well, as infancy is indeed the beginning of the Christian journey for many of us.)

What doesn't make sense to me, in views #2 and #3, is why the Baptismal Vows are still included in the rite when the person being baptized is an infant. It's always seemed to me like we're pretending that the baby is taking these vows, and any sort of pretense in church grates on me. Maybe the parents are taking the vows for themselves; but then, aren't we one generation off? If the parents were going to take vows, shouldn't it have been at their own baptism or confirmation?

So, fellow Anglicans, why do we have parents say the Baptismal Vows at the baptism of their babies? How does that vow relate to the grace being conferred on the child?

 

[Paidiske]

Disclaimer: It's Easter Sunday afternoon and my brain is - ah - not delivering peak performance right now.

I think, PloverWing, I would nudge you in the direction of understanding baptism as belonging to and practiced within a community of faith. Your views outlined above are all very individualistic, about God and the one being baptised. But I would argue that the one being baptised is being incorporated into a body, a body which makes these promises and lives them out not individually but corporately.

So baptism is something of all of your options above, but it is also deeper and richer than that.

How does that sit with others? Have I expressed that in a way which makes any sense?

 

[PloverWing]

I'm unwinding after a lengthy Easter Vigil, and also not at peak performance.

I agree that I do tend to an individualistic view of the spiritual life, probably a combination of my Evangelical upbringing, my American culture, and my introverted personality. Baptism as incorporation into a Christian community is worth thinking about, and I will give it thought in the next few days.

What's the role of the vow, though, in that case? Is it just voicing the general beliefs of the community? The question-and-answer part ("Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God? / I renounce them / Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior? / I do") really sounds like an individual's commitment to me. Should I hear it more generally, as "this is what the church community believes"?

 

[Paidiske]

I think it's both/and. It's an individual's commitment and the church's rule of faith.

 

[Deegie]

What's the role of the vow, though, in that case? Is it just voicing the general beliefs of the community? The question-and-answer part ("Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God? / I renounce them / Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior? / I do") really sounds like an individual's commitment to me. Should I hear it more generally, as "this is what the church community believes"?

I think it’s more than communal belief. I think the baptismal vows (as in marriage and ordination) are one part promise, one part public accountability, and one part an unspoken request for help in fulfilling them. I don’t think each part is necessarily the same size or importance, but all three play some role.

I definitely share your concern that it feels a bit off to have others make promises on behalf of someone who will eventually have full agency to decide for him/herself whether or not the promises actually get carried out. But there is a reason we no longer do private baptisms. It is all about incorporation into a community of faith and trusting that God will somehow manifest that in the person’s life.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

I am confused because that's sounds calvinistic, but @Paidiske's response is almost Lutheran.

 

[Paidiske]

And once again, the breadth of Anglicanism is neatly encapsulated in a single thread.

 

[everbecoming2007]

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

I tend to think of Christianity in terms of its Jewish origins, and baptism is our spiritual circumcision. And circumcision was performed on infants as the sign of the covenant. While unlike Jews we Christians are not born into the covenant I cannot see why Jewish children should be included in the covenant, but the children of Christian parents should be excluded.

There is also the issue of the mentally handicapped. Should they be excluded because they cannot give intellectual assent? But what of the fruits of their life? Can they not bear an implicit faith?

Faith is individual, but not only individual. It is also communal. It is passed on through community. Furthermore faith is not only intellectual assent, but an act of deepest trust. Trust comes first, then belief.

This may not be a theological tome I've written, but it is my sense of the faith as it has been passed onto me, and that is the essence of tradition.

 

[Tree of Life]

I couldn't give the particularly Anglican rationale for baptizing infants but I can give the Presbyterian rationale if you're also interested in learning more about that.

Most Christian denominations baptize babies but they all do it for slightly different reasons.

 

[everbecoming2007]

I couldn't give the particularly Anglican rationale for baptizing infants but I can give the Presbyterian rationale if you're also interested in learning more about that.

Most Christian denominations baptize babies but they all do it for slightly different reasons.

What are the Presbyterian reasons?

 

[Tree of Life]

What are the Presbyterian reasons?

Presbyterians baptize the children of believers because we believe in the biblical concept of the "covenant child" - that not only believers, but also their children are "holy" and "set apart". The sign of covenant inclusion since the time of Abraham has been applied not only to believers, but also to their children.