The Church of England’s standpoint on what infant baptism is that it is grounded in the covenant between god and the church.
Baptist’s churches believe however, that infant baptism is unjustified.
These beliefs there origins and justification for them by the church or followers of the church?
Roman Catholic Church
Definition by the oxford dictionary: the part of the Christian church, which acknowledges the pope as its head. Especially since, it has devolved since the reformation.
Roman Catholics belief that the pope is a direct link to god this can be seen since the roman catholic church is discussing now wither to make the current pope a saint after his death.
Infant baptism remits the guilt of original sin. This statement and viewpoint, which is held overall by the Catholic Church, comes from Cyprian of Carthage, who declared that infant baptism procured remission of both sinful acts and original sin. However, this statement has been changed and added to over the years by various sources until today which now it stands as the Roman Catholic viewpoint on infant baptism that it is essential due to the fact it remits the guilt of original sin. The problem with Cyprian statement is that he says that infant baptism remits original sin. Not the guilt of original sin, this means that if original sin were remitted through baptism then people who had been baptised would not be able to think or comment sinful acts. However, this is not the case.
Augustine a famous philosophers/ theologises met this statement by saying that baptism removes the guilt of original sin not the disease itself. Thus you would be forgiven for the original sin but the damage it has caused to you soul or has he put it the dieses of original sin cannot be removed mealy forgiven. He argued that the only thing that could get rid of the dieses of original sin and the effect it has had would be by continuing work of grace within the believer.
Thus, this is how the original statement was changed to meet the modern viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church that infant baptism removes the guilt of original sin. Not the dieses it self.
The only problem so far is what happens to infants/adults who have not committed any sin but have died before they could be baptised. It is argued that if they die before being baptise if in adult hood they would have had the opportunity to be baptise so would be guilty of failing to meet that also that they would remain guilty of original sin plus whatever other sinful acts they would have committed in life. Thus according to Augustine would suffer the penalty of being condemned and the experience of hell.
However, infants who die before they had the chance to be baptise has been argued by peter Lombard that they remain guilty of original sin and suffer the consensus of that but not having the chance to be baptise. In addition, not having committed any other sin. Infants would only suffer the penalty of being condemned but would not experience the pains of hell. This is an idea from date’s description of hell of a place called limbo. However, this viewpoint is held by many of the followers of the Roman Catholic Church it has never officially been accepted.
However, in recent and past time it has been noted for people who have had infants/adults die before being baptise. Doing a baptise for them thus washing away sin and allowing them access to heaven again some people believe this but it is not officially accepted by the roman catholic church.
The practices of the roman chalice church is too baptise infants as soon as possible and the promise made at baptism would be made by the church the parents and the godparents. Until the child reaches a bout the age of 7/8, where they make there promises for them selves with the first communion.
There practices and believes differ from the Church of England and Baptist churches which both of them from the other two main believes about baptism. As baptise believe infant bating to be unjustified. In addition, would not perform the act until later in life. In addition, the Church of England’s main standpoint is that it dose wash away sin but it many initiates children into the church. They do not believe in original sin. Instead they use both catholic and protestant s ideas in infant baptism.
Church of England
Church of England definition from the oxford dictionary: the English branch of the western Christian church, which combines both catholic and protestant tradition. However, rejects the pope’s authority and has the king/queen of England as its ruler.
This belief held by the Church of England is the second main belief held about baptism it can be referred to as the moderate reformist view of that of the middle view since it uses both protestant and catholic beliefs on the subject.
The Church of England’s view is very like that of the Roman Catholics but also the protestant viewpoint. They do not believe in the idea of original sin but do believe in infant baptism. However, very unlike the Roman Catholics they have to justify they standpoint from the bible. Since The word 'christen' (to sprinkle with water as a baby) does not appear in the Bible.
The practice stems from AD 753 when monks of Cress in Brittany consulted with Pope Stephen III if, in a case of necessity, baptism performed by pouring water on the head of the infant would be lawful. Stephen replied that it would.
The word 'baptism' does appear in the Bible also.
Therefore, as good protestant s over all they have to justify the position from the bible since they cannot directly do this they have to search for entrance in the bible that can be interpreted as this.
Such entrance come from Hebrews 6:1-2 Galatians 3:16-29 Acts 8:12 Acts 8:26-39 Acts 9:17-18 John 9:22-23 Matthew 3:6, 13-16 Acts 2:37-38 Acts 10:47-48 Acts 1:38 Acts 18:8 Acts 22:16
This quotes from the bible as said before do not directly justify infant baptism however, they can be interpreted to do so. for instance Hebrews 6:1-2 which sates “1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.” which means that we should teach about the elementary teaching’s of Christ and go to motorcar which means we should teach the works of Christ and go on to adulthood so this passage is used by the c of e to justify teachings the works of Christ to children. In addition, the interaction of baptism so on of the main ways of doing this is to baptise children. This is one view in which the c of e uses the bible to justify infant baptism.
Other quotes are nearly the same to this and they use these to justify infant baptism. However they do not believe in the idea of original sin and that if not baptise infants must go to hell. They formed this opinion from a quote in the bible He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16). So unlike the Roman Catholics they do not believe in the idea of limbo for un baptise children but believe that baptism is necessary to teach infants the way of Christ.
This view is however very different from that of the Baptists church or have formed the idea that infant baptism is unjustified since they is no such cases in the bible
So in short, the Church of England the second main belief on baptism, which is held by this church that infant baptism, is necessary in teaching people about Christ. However, dose not gets rid of original sin, as they do not believe in this. In addition, unlike the Roman Catholics do not think that it is compulsory and do not believe in limbo. In addition, that unlike the Roman Catholics they have to find quotes from the bible to justify there stand points. In addition, they do not believe if an infant dies before baptism, they go to hell or limbo but to haven as the infant would not have had any sins to be forgiven. Also unlike the baptism, they do not believe it is unjustified. They practise infant baptism much like the Roman Catholics. However they have a conformation when the child is old enough to make the conformation themselves into learning about Christ which the Baptists have but the roman Catholics do not instead they have something called first communion.
Unlike both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England who both expect infant baptism Baptist churches do not they say it is unjustified
The c of e uses both hardcore catholic ideas and protestant ideas to come to the standpoint they have on infant baptism.
Baptist church
Baptist Definition by the oxford dictionary: a member of a protestant Christian detonation advocating baptism only of adult believers by total immersion.
This church holds the third and indeed the most reformed view of baptism and can sometimes be called the extreme view on baptism. The Baptist church like the church of England is a protestant church. But unlike the church of England it dose not use catholic views on baptism plus protestant in there ideas on infant baptism only protestant. It believes in short that since in the bible there is no reported case of infant baptism then it is unjustified. The only reported cases of baptism are done on adults.
According g to Baptist churches baptism can only happen when shows signs of repentance grace or faith. One major supporter of the statement made by the Baptist church on infant baptism is that of Karl bath who has three major lines of criticism on the practise of infant baptism.
- “it is without biblical foundation. All evidence points to infant baptism having been the normal practise in the postapostolic period, not the period of the new testament itself.”
- “the practise of infant baptism has led to the disastrous assumption that individuals are Christians as a result of there birth. Barth argues in terms which remained dietrich bonhoffers idea of cheap grace that baptism devalues the grace of god and reduces Christianity to a mealy social phenomenon”
- “the practise of infant baptism weakens the central link between baptism and Christian discipleship. Baptism is a witness to the grace of god and marks the begging of the human response to this grace in the infants cannot mean fully make this response the theological meaning of baptism is obscured.
This basically means that the Baptist church differ from both the church of England’s view point on infant baptism and that of the roman Catholics. Baptist churches deny infant baptism unlike these churches. Also in Baptist churches you have no first common of the church of England’s conformation. Since baptism is only preformed in adulthood. Also unlike the roman Catholics Baptist believe that original sin dose not exist and un baptise kids and infants do not go to hell since they are not old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. And unlike the church of England do not believe infant baptism is needed in teaching infants about Christ.
Conclusion
Is that all three believes can be justified and argued by each other and there is no one core belief about infant baptism that everyone can agree on. So thus it is impossible to surmise what everyone believes since none of the can agree what to believe. Each of these churches believe in this believe for reason for what it can say and can argue that others are wrong. The practise of infant baptism like what the Baptist say Is not reported in the bible. The only kind of thing nearly the same to it is in the old testament in the concussion of boys who were Jewish and this is used as a justification by the church of England. In conclusion the 1st belief is the catholic believe in short. The 2nd is that of the catholic / protestant believe mid way. The 3rd is that of the protestant believe.
By Mathew Robert Howard tutor group MDB