Anglican but want immersion baptism?

[Cappadocious]

The Didache gives instructions that those to be baptized should fast - how would an infant do that?

Well, the manual is geared toward adult converts. Because it's written down.

So, it doesn't concern infants either way and doesn't give a positive or a negative on this issue.

Contrary to popular belief, paedobaptism and later life baptism of children have almost always existed contemporaneously. There was never a time where paedobaptism existed and later life baptism of the children of christian parents did not, afaik. St. John Chrysostom is one famous example, and he's from the 4th Century.

 

[seekingsister]

I said that we baptise infants, and we do. You had said, "But there is no suggestion anywhere in the Bible or in the earliest sources (Didache) that infant baptism unaccompanied by believer's baptism of a parent/guardian existed in the early church."

THAT is a rejection of infant baptism. We Anglicans do not reject infant baptism. What you wrote is NOT a plea for allowing adults to be baptised as well as infants.

I don't think it's a salvific issue, so rejection is perhaps a strong word. I do, however, think Scripture and history point towards infant baptism being a later development, perhaps as a way to lock in membership for life back in the times when the Church was a political and economic power as well.

I have read through the Baptism service, and it pains me that I will not be able to participate in it myself because of choices my parents made for me - especially as neither of them accepts my original baptism as being valid now. I would not have joined CofE if not for the option of thanksgiving with a later baptism for my own children.

Anyway as long as I stay CofE no way I'm getting baptized again so this is all moot.

 

[Cappadocious]

I do, however, think Scripture and history point towards infant baptism being a later development, perhaps as a way to lock in membership for life back in the times when the Church was a political and economic power as well.

The Church became a political and economic power in the 4th Century. There are plenty of sources mentioning infant baptism before this time.

 

[mark46]

We have moved from discussing the method of baptism to discussing the nature of baptism.

I think that we all understand that both immersion and pouring are acceptable options. The open question is whether immersion was normative in the early Church.

We have moved to discussing whether we should baptize infants or not, and whether baptism has anything to do with salvation. I would suggest a separate thread if this is really an issue. As we found with the Eucharist, I'm sure there are more than practice and understanding within Anglicanism. That being said, I don't think that infant baptism is an option; it is simply part of our sacramental life. We can argue about whether we have 2 sacraments or 7, but we do have two.

 

[Albion]

We have moved from discussing the method of baptism to discussing the nature of baptism.

I think that we all understand that both immersion and pouring are acceptable options.

All except for 'seekingsister.'

 

[seekingsister]

All except for 'seekingsister.'

Excuse me? Look a page or two back, I said I think pouring is fine.

In my opinion, baptism at an age when the person is old enough to believe on their own is closer to the Scriptural examples of baptism. That cannot be argued with, there is no infant baptism in the Bible.

That is not the same as saying that infant baptism is not valid - it must be. But it's not a Bible-based tradition.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but you claimed things about Anglican practice that aren't true. Again can't post links but on various UK parenting websites people are saying at their churches in England it's now 50:50 between baptism and thanksgiving. So if even CofE is no longer pushing Christian parents towards infant baptism then maybe your intense commitment to this practice needs to dial down a notch or two. It is no longer a core Anglican teaching that infants are to be baptized by believing parents.

 

[MKJ]

I have heard of this trend in the CofE of not baptizing infants. It is a-historical and wildly inappropriate IMO.

Another case of people making significant theological changes without any actual theological thinking.

 

[seekingsister]

I have heard of this trend in the CofE of not baptizing infants. It is a-historical and wildly inappropriate IMO.

Another case of people making significant theological changes without any actual theological thinking.

The Thanksgiving for the Gift of a Child service was introduced in 1999, so it's been policy for more than 10 years now.

 

[Albion]

The Thanksgiving for the Gift of a Child service was introduced in 1999, so it's been policy for more than 10 years now.

Now, THAT's what we call "Tradition!"

 

[Adam Warlock]

Turns out that our 1979 BCP also has a service with this name, though it seems to have a different theological flavor. I almost wonder if it was a replacement for the old "churching of women" post-childbirth text. Ours doesn't seem to present itself as a substitute for (or deferral of) baptism. Do people misread or misuse it that way? I have no idea. I had never seen it until this morning. But once we realize that God is the one who does the baptizing, and that we receive faith and forgiveness of sins as a helpless child, how can we delay?

 

[seekingsister]

Now, THAT's what we call "Tradition!"

Just pointing out that I didn't just make it up or that my parish has gone off the rails.

 

[Albion]

Excuse me? Look a page or two back, I said I think pouring is fine.

In my opinion, baptism at an age when the person is old enough to believe on their own is closer to the Scriptural examples of baptism. That cannot be argued with, there is no infant baptism in the Bible.

You are right, and I stand corrected. It was what you'd said about infant baptism that I was thinking of, not baptism by affusion.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but you claimed things about Anglican practice that aren't true.

Naaaa. You just didn't understand (and that I HAVE explained that to you, so there's nothing more to say on this account).

 

[seekingsister]

Turns out that our 1979 BCP also has a service with this name, though it seems to have a different theological flavor. I almost wonder if it was a replacement for the old "churching of women" post-childbirth text. Ours doesn't seem to present itself as a substitute for (or deferral of) baptism. Do people misread or misuse it that way? I have no idea. I had never seen it until this morning. But once we realize that God is the one who does the baptizing, and that we receive faith and forgiveness of sins as a helpless child, how can we delay?

I found it online and it says at the end

"For a child not yet baptized

O eternal God, you have promised to be a father to a thousand generations of those who love and fear you: Bless this child and preserve his life; receive him and enable him to receive you, that through the Sacrament of Baptism he may become the child of God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. "


​

 

[seekingsister]

I'm a little disheartened at this conversation.

The thing I love about Anglicanism is that it gives you choice while retaining a common history and liturgy. Baptism is one of the choices the church allows and has done so for at least a decade, although looking at the 1979 BCP it seems it went back even to then.

Infant baptism is NOT a mandate or requirement in the Anglican church. You can practice it, you can celebrate it (I will celebrate infant baptism as well) but it should be the parent's choice. Scripture points to believers baptism; Anglican tradition points to infant baptism. Even if apostolic tradition is where infant baptism came from, there has NEVER been a condemnation of believer's baptism in the Anglican church and none of you should condemn it either.

 

[Adam Warlock]

I found it online and it says at the end

"For a child not yet baptized

O eternal God, you have promised to be a father to a thousand generations of those who love and fear you: Bless this child and preserve his life; receive him and enable him to receive you, that through the Sacrament of Baptism he may become the child of God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. "


​

Any 1979 experts out there, am I reading it wrong? To me, this (and the final blessing) really look like they are emphasizing the importance of baptism.

I'm a little disheartened at this conversation.

The thing I love about Anglicanism is that it gives you choice while retaining a common history and liturgy. Baptism is one of the choices the church allows and has done so for at least a decade, although looking at the 1979 BCP it seems it went back even to then.

Infant baptism is NOT a mandate or requirement in the Anglican church. You can practice it, you can celebrate it (I will celebrate infant baptism as well) but it should be the parent's choice. Scripture points to believers baptism; Anglican tradition points to infant baptism. Even if apostolic tradition is where infant baptism came from, there has NEVER been a condemnation of believer's baptism in the Anglican church and none of you should condemn it either.

For what it's worth, I was baptized at age 12...even though I was Presbyterian. Our church taught that delaying infant baptism was a sin, but my very Evangelical parents didn't agree with that (or with infant baptism at all). So I had a non-adult but non-infant believer's pouring baptism. I've seen it all.

I share that because I have pondered this many times over the years. And ultimately, if we believe what we claim to believe about baptism, it makes no sense to delay it. It is not tied to professions of faith or to understanding or to experience. It's closer to the idea of circumcision, actually; and it makes us part of the Church & washes us clean. So it's not that Anglicans are saying that believer's baptism is wrong. It's that we have a theology of baptism, and a corresponding practice, that are right. Just my two theological cents. Not taking shots at the CoE at all, as those of us in TEC have our own challenges.

 

[seekingsister]

Adam I totally understand your point.

I believe that my baptism was valid, but I also believe that had I grown up Anglican/Episcopalian (my mom became a born again when I was 4 or 5) that I would have chosen it myself with no question. I was very jealous of my friends who got confirmed when we were teenagers. The church I grew up in mandated believer's baptism, that only baptism in THAT church was valid, and that if you switched churches afterwards you were turning away from God.

So you can understand that I am wary of any rules that say it MUST be done this way or else regarding baptism. My parents made promises at my baptism that they did not uphold, as neither of them thinks it was valid now. Is it a coincidence I ended up wandering without God for 10 years? I really don't know.

 

[MKJ]

I'm a little disheartened at this conversation.

The thing I love about Anglicanism is that it gives you choice while retaining a common history and liturgy. Baptism is one of the choices the church allows and has done so for at least a decade, although looking at the 1979 BCP it seems it went back even to then.

Infant baptism is NOT a mandate or requirement in the Anglican church. You can practice it, you can celebrate it (I will celebrate infant baptism as well) but it should be the parent's choice. Scripture points to believers baptism; Anglican tradition points to infant baptism. Even if apostolic tradition is where infant baptism came from, there has NEVER been a condemnation of believer's baptism in the Anglican church and none of you should condemn it either.

Here is the thing - the Anglicanism that you are saying gives us a choice about this was invented in the 20th century, the latter part of it. It goes along with a great many other issues they have decided to stop thinking about in any kind of coherent way, and the idea that whatever makes people comfortable is ok.

That is to say, it is part and parcel of the crises within Anglicanism. That is why it is hard to take it seriously as an "Anglican theological position". It has no theological thought involved like many other decisions made in this period. I say that as someone who thinks it is necessary to baptize, but I think my criticism is true here even if I am wrong about that. Anglicanism has failed to make any kind of effort to think about what is theologically correct in this instance as in others.

You cannot hold to the traditional understanding of baptism held by Anglicans and then casually say "well, it is ok to dedicate your infant and baptize later." The two ideas cannot reconcile. Either it is indifferent when we baptize, or it is important, we can't say it is both. The baptismal liturgy - at least the older versions - makes it clear why we think it is important to baptize infants, as soon as possible. Not just because of the washing away of sins - after all even Christ, who was sinless was baptized - but because it is baptism which incorporates us into the Body of Christ and gives us grace which we otherwise would not have to amend ourselves. Infants as they grow older need that Grace as the rest of us do and they can be part of the Church as the rest of us can.

If we really believe that, not baptizing an infant is grossly negligent.

Nowhere has the Anglican Communion said they do not believe that it is through baptism these things happen, and making a change in doctrine of that kind would not be something that a national church like the CofE could decide alone. It would have to come before the whole Communion.

The situation seems to be that the baptismal theology of the Anglican Communion remains the same, and for some reason some national churches are failing to teach that and in fact developing ceremonies that provide other options.

I am not all that inclined to take the "teaching" of rogue elements as telling me what "Anglicanism" says about baptism.

 

[mark46]

13 whole years!

Yup, about the same as for Baptists in the US.

How does this make this practice of withholding baptismal generation from children part of the Tradition of the Church?

The Thanksgiving for the Gift of a Child service was introduced in 1999, so it's been policy for more than 10 years now.

 

[mark46]

For believing parents to withhold baptismal regeneration from children is a travesty. For a local church to do so is unspeakable.

Turns out that our 1979 BCP also has a service with this name, though it seems to have a different theological flavor. I almost wonder if it was a replacement for the old "churching of women" post-childbirth text. Ours doesn't seem to present itself as a substitute for (or deferral of) baptism. Do people misread or misuse it that way? I have no idea. I had never seen it until this morning. But once we realize that God is the one who does the baptizing, and that we receive faith and forgiveness of sins as a helpless child, how can we delay?

 

[mark46]

In the end, this discussion is NOT about best practice or variety of acceptable practice. It is about the very meaning of baptism. Is baptism God's gift of Grace for the forgiveness of sins or not? Do we believe in baptismal regeneration or not? Do we believe in even two sacraments or none?

I was surprised that it was acceptable for some local churches to teach the memorialist view of the Eucharist.

I am appalled that is acceptable for some local churches to teach the symbolic view of baptism. For certainly, if baptism removes the stain of original sin, then we should be accepting God's gift of baptism for infants.