And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye search for me with all your heart. ~Jeremiah Ch 29 vs. 13
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Baptism Question
I know I only have two followers, but I can see from my stats that more people check in. So I have a question. What is your take on infant baptism over youth/adult baptism? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
I'm not altogether in favour of infant baptism. When a baby is baptized, it's not their choice--it's their parent's. From what I understand, a baptism is a declaration of faith and something really personal that you should decide to do for yourself. You can't make that choice when you're an infant.
Now you see I would now disagree...here is why.. We know from early literature that infant baptism was being carried out by the end of the first century. It is important to note that there were people living then who had known the apostles and that there are no trace of objections to infant baptism in the early literature. If it had been something the apostles objected to, there would have been objections in that literature.
Further, in Acts 16, the Philippian jailor accepted Christ and was baptized - he and his whole family. Which means everyone, wife, children and even slaves. The same earlier in that same chapter - Lydia and all her household were baptized after Lydia 'responded to Paul's message.' Members of the household meant family and servants.
My question to you Rae would be do you think that the giants of Christianity over the years who accomplished great things for God, brought multitudes to Christ, but accepted infant baptism, were wrong? Wesley, for example?
Some people will tell you that infant baptism is 'flat out not part of the Bible'. I feel that statement is somewhat misguided as we do lots of things today which are not flat out part of the Bible. There were no church buildings in the Bible either, but we don't feel we are sinning by building a church building and gathering in it. There is no trace of annual meetings in the Bible, etc.
I recently researched my baptism (and yours as you were baptized presbyterian). I've come to the decision that I believe my baptism was solid. As Presbyterians we believe in conventant theology, but you should know that we confirm our baptisms at the time of joining our church. I did that.
Also I should really say that I have no issue with churches that prefer to simply dedicate babies and baptize people when they are old enough to understand. Either way is fine with me. I don't feel one way is better than another, but I don't feel either way is wrong.
So there are my thoughts, I would go on, but I think that is enough to assure you your baptism was solid.
Wow! What a convincing statement you made! I love that you pointed out that whole families were baptized. Even though I have never really gave the topic much thought.
I'm not altogether in favour of infant baptism. When a baby is baptized, it's not their choice--it's their parent's. From what I understand, a baptism is a declaration of faith and something really personal that you should decide to do for yourself. You can't make that choice when you're an infant.
ReplyDeleteNow you see I would now disagree...here is why..
ReplyDeleteWe know from early literature that infant baptism was being carried out by the end of the first century. It is important to note that there were people living then who had known the apostles and that there are no trace of objections to infant baptism in the early literature. If it had been something the apostles objected to, there would have been objections in that literature.
Further, in Acts 16, the Philippian jailor accepted Christ and was baptized - he and his whole family. Which means everyone, wife, children and even slaves. The same earlier in that same chapter - Lydia and all her household were baptized after Lydia 'responded to Paul's message.' Members of the household meant family and servants.
My question to you Rae would be do you think that the giants of Christianity over the years who accomplished great things for God, brought multitudes to Christ, but accepted infant baptism, were wrong? Wesley, for example?
Some people will tell you that infant baptism is 'flat out not part of the Bible'. I feel that statement is somewhat misguided as we do lots of things today which are not flat out part of the Bible. There were no church buildings in the Bible either, but we don't feel we are sinning by building a church building and gathering in it. There is no trace of annual meetings in the Bible, etc.
I recently researched my baptism (and yours as you were baptized presbyterian). I've come to the decision that I believe my baptism was solid. As Presbyterians we believe in conventant theology, but you should know that we confirm our baptisms at the time of joining our church. I did that.
Also I should really say that I have no issue with churches that prefer to simply dedicate babies and baptize people when they are old enough to understand. Either way is fine with me. I don't feel one way is better than another, but I don't feel either way is wrong.
So there are my thoughts, I would go on, but I think that is enough to assure you your baptism was solid.
Wow! What a convincing statement you made! I love that you pointed out that whole families were baptized. Even though I have never really gave the topic much thought.
ReplyDelete