The annual church report of 1991 states that Infant Baptism is: -
“The one and complete Sacrament of Christian initiation.”
This means that Infant baptism is the best way to become a member of the Christian Church. So their views are simple.
One of the most important points is that dating back to around 200 AD Hippolytus mentions infant baptism as wildly practised, so Infant Baptism has a very long history within in the Christian Church.
My parents believe that Infant Baptism is not a worthwhile practise. I was never baptised and the reasons I feel are very justifiable. They feel as though I should be able to choose for myself whether or not that commitment is made. They also felt as though if they did not believe in Jesus or a God, then it would be unsuitable to join a faith that rests on these beliefs.
Now for the points against:
Infant Baptism has a long history of Christian practise, but Believers Baptism has a much longer history. In St. Paul’s letter to Christians in Rome, he only refers to adult baptism, going fully under the water. Infant Baptism started at least a century later, when parents wanted their children to go to heaven if they died during infancy, as there was a high infant mortality rate.
Infant Baptism has also caused the need for conformation, and a second unnecessary giving of the Holy Spirit.
Many views of the Church of England will not baptise infants; instead they give a blessing service, where no promises are made on the baby’s behalf. This is because the vicar believes that the child will have no future with the church, and that the parents would treat the baptism as only a social occasion. The Churches are worried that this is the only reason that many people have Infant Baptism.
I can’t think of one good reason for Infant Baptism. When beleivers baptism rests on most of the facts, apart from the ability to choose your commitment.
For example, having Infant Baptism as a social occasion is not even an argument. Because most of the time the people and the child do not, and will not have any other connection with the Church, and because of ‘Social Baptisms’ the churches are offering a blessing ceremony as an alternative. This I feel is a sensible option.
The practise of Infant Baptism’s history is shallower, and newer, which to me suggests that the soul reason for the practise was the high infant mortality rate, which I have previously mentioned. However believer’s baptism’s history is greater and goes back a century longer.
So weighing up these arguments, I believe that Infant Baptism is wrong, because the child has a right to know what is happening to it, so should be given the choice whether he or she wants to be baptised when older. The idea of infant baptism I do agree with. At the time of the initiative parents were scared for their child, and out of love for them, baptised them. Now though, as infant mortality rates are minimal, I feel as though believer’s baptism is the way that most people would prefer to have.
