Posted by Yong TM (202.156.2.219) on January 24, 2003 at 21:24:31:
In Reply to: Baptism of Infants. posted by Khew Chee Keong on January 22, 2003 at 19:41:52:
Ha ha, I actually wrote a paper on this while I was in the seminary...
Essentially, there are two big camps, those who believe in infant baptism, and those who do not. Within those who believe, there are sub-camps as well. Here are 3:
1. Infant baptism is effective unto salvation - this follows along the line of grace. This most conservative concept insists that baptism is effective to salvation even for infants. Your pastor's position seems to reflect this, but this is quite a rare position. The question of original sin is a big one, but most people do believe that man are not judged for their original sin (in that Christ died for all's original sins already), but their sins of commission when they can make conscious choice. This is why most people believe that dead babies and the mentally retarded will receive grace to enter the kingdom because their original sins have been forgiven already, and they have no capacity for sins of commission. So infant baptism is not a shield to block the original sin. In this position, it is supposed to be effective unto salvation immediately. I need to check, but I think the Roman Catholic church may hold this position.
2. Infant baptism is an act of faith. The idea is not that baptism gives salvation, but that baptism would have the Holy Spirit, in His grace grant salvation in the right time. The Westminster Confession of Faith in Chapter 30 section 6 states, "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is adminstered (John 3:5). Yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appoint time (Gal 3:27). The general thrust is that an infant is baptised into the covenant that his family already have with God. It is a statement of faith in that the covenant covers the entire family. Yet the Confession states that baptism is not essential for salvation; and also baptism does not guarantee salvation. So it is a mark of the covenant, and not the actual effective tool for salvation.
3. Infant baptism is a promise made by the parents. This seems to be a modern variation, where parents take the stand and promises to bring the child up to obey the LORD. Hence some churches have confirmation baptism (which the Westminster Confession disagree - in that only 1 baptism should be done in our life time) when the child reaches 16 or so. This stand is easier to accept by most, which I suppose is why it is more popular.
Although the Bible does not tell us that we are to baptize infant, by inference to the idea of covenant being for the entire family (as in the Old Testament, e.g. Genesis 17:7), it would seem natural for the church and parents to want to indicate that their child too is under the grace of God, and baptism serves that purpose. Most Presbyterian churches understand this to be so, and very few people would preach that infant baptism leads to salvation.
As I wrote in my own seminary paper, it would seems strange that even the boy scouts have rites of initiation when a boy joins the scout movement, but Christianity does not allow any rites of initiation. When I allowed both my daughters to be baptised, I felt that as a father, I am making a statement that they too are under the covenant of God, and we will move as a family along this spiritual journey.
But you know something, I concluded my paper by writing that among all theological issues, infant baptism is considered a very minor issue. It is certainly not a theological life and death question. So I would not be too bothered by difference in opinion about this. Only those who insist that infant baptism brings sure salvation needs to answer like crazy...