Friday, February 25, 2005
Baptism
Adrian Warnock points to a post by Half Pint House questioning infant baptism. Adrian is not a proponent of infant baptism and explains why, and as usual does so well. But he also throws down a gauntlet, "Let me know if you get answers to these questions. As a non-paedobaptist I doubt you will get very clear ones" Well that is a challenge if I ever heard one.
HPH's questions seem to center on the "necessity" of infant sprinkling for the children to be in the covenant. I am going to try and address this as neatly and CLEARLY as I can.
I do not think any sacramental observance, baptism and communion for us Presbyterians, is necessary for God to do anything to me or for me, or anyone else for that matter. Baptism is not necessary for God, but it is absolutely vital for us.
Becoming a Christian, saying 'yes' to Jesus, saying the sinners prayer, or in "Adrianspeak," responding to the simple gospel is the beginning of a journey, not it's end. I believe that it is absolutely necessary to publicly announce the beginning of that journey. Baptism is that announcement.
Jesus commanded baptism because he knew that we need to make such pronouncements. These pronouncements put us in a position of accountability to the greater community, there is no going back on it now. They also give us assurance that the commitment we have made is real. I probably prayed the sinners prayer a dozen times, until I made a public pronouncement(though not baptism), and then I knew it was real.
Baptism is unique as such a pronouncement because of its deep symbolism into death and resurrection.
Having said that, baptism is necessary, not to enter the Kingdom or covenant somehow, but simply because it was commanded.
Now, as to infant baptism...I cannot begin to understand God's judgment regarding children not yet able to respond to the gospel on an intellectual level. That's His business. But, because I believe baptism is about us, and not about Him, if it grants assurance to parents and or the congregation, then I am all for it.
For us Presbyterians, infant baptism is prescribed. I am an Elder in the Presbyterian Church and have therefore pledged to be guided by its doctrines. The doctrine is old. I believe its roots lie in efforts to maintain some priestly role for the clergy. Many Presbyterian congregations provide for infant dedication or baptism at the request of the individual family. I am a proponent of such, but do not push the issue hard if opposed because of my pledge to uphold existing doctrine.
What I am saying is that, because it is commanded, baptism is necessary. But it is about us, not about God. That said, when it happens, or even if it happens more than once, is a question to be answered based on what will produce the desired effect in the individuals involved.
I should note that I was re-baptised as an adult because the church I joined in my one foray away from being Presbyterian, would not recognize my infant baptism. Sometimes, it is just about obedience.
HPH's questions seem to center on the "necessity" of infant sprinkling for the children to be in the covenant. I am going to try and address this as neatly and CLEARLY as I can.
I do not think any sacramental observance, baptism and communion for us Presbyterians, is necessary for God to do anything to me or for me, or anyone else for that matter. Baptism is not necessary for God, but it is absolutely vital for us.
Becoming a Christian, saying 'yes' to Jesus, saying the sinners prayer, or in "Adrianspeak," responding to the simple gospel is the beginning of a journey, not it's end. I believe that it is absolutely necessary to publicly announce the beginning of that journey. Baptism is that announcement.
Jesus commanded baptism because he knew that we need to make such pronouncements. These pronouncements put us in a position of accountability to the greater community, there is no going back on it now. They also give us assurance that the commitment we have made is real. I probably prayed the sinners prayer a dozen times, until I made a public pronouncement(though not baptism), and then I knew it was real.
Baptism is unique as such a pronouncement because of its deep symbolism into death and resurrection.
Having said that, baptism is necessary, not to enter the Kingdom or covenant somehow, but simply because it was commanded.
Now, as to infant baptism...I cannot begin to understand God's judgment regarding children not yet able to respond to the gospel on an intellectual level. That's His business. But, because I believe baptism is about us, and not about Him, if it grants assurance to parents and or the congregation, then I am all for it.
For us Presbyterians, infant baptism is prescribed. I am an Elder in the Presbyterian Church and have therefore pledged to be guided by its doctrines. The doctrine is old. I believe its roots lie in efforts to maintain some priestly role for the clergy. Many Presbyterian congregations provide for infant dedication or baptism at the request of the individual family. I am a proponent of such, but do not push the issue hard if opposed because of my pledge to uphold existing doctrine.
What I am saying is that, because it is commanded, baptism is necessary. But it is about us, not about God. That said, when it happens, or even if it happens more than once, is a question to be answered based on what will produce the desired effect in the individuals involved.
I should note that I was re-baptised as an adult because the church I joined in my one foray away from being Presbyterian, would not recognize my infant baptism. Sometimes, it is just about obedience.
