its a means of grace

you should talk to your pastor about all this rather than crypto baptist's or denominational baptist's who are really enamies of Christ AND his gospel meassage presented in holy baptism

My need to understand stems from growing up with one understanding of baptism, then being thrust into another. The age of baptism isn't really my issue, it's the state of the heart of the person being baptised. I was raised believing that a baptism is an expression of faith… a proclamation of conversion that has already occured. Infant baptism places the baptism event well before faith can ever take place.

Actually, that's what I meant. Sorry about the confusion. What I was getting at is that when parents have their infant children baptized and don't follow through with their promises to bring the child up in the Christian faith, its makes it very difficult for that child to ever claim those baptismal promises for themselves later on in life. Likewise, a person who makes the decision to be baptized later in life, may or may not end up following through with his/her commitment to continue in any real relationship with Jesus and fall away. In either case, does this make their baptism somehow null and void? My argument is that in both cases, they are still children of God, claimed by the Holy Spirit and marked with the cross of Christ forever. Because, it's not about us.

BTW – I do agree with you that it's very important to find ways to "remember" and celebrate our baptism. There certainly is something nice about being old enough to have that special memory that you can carry around with you. However, as a parent and baptismal sponsor for a number of my nieces, I have found ways to celebrate their baptismal anniversaries with them that can evoke memories. On each of those anniversary days, I have given them a special gift and when I've been able to be with them, we have lighted their baptismal candle, look at pictures and share stories about that special day. Now, one of the things that our church tries to do is also give the parents and sponsors a DVD of the service and encourage them to show it to their children on their baptismal anniversary day as a part of the celebration. So as they grow older, their baptism becomes more real and meaningful to them.

True, the child had no choice in the matter. I guess what I meant is that people, in general, were required to act in order to enter into the covenant. The child is passive, yes, but the child's parents were not.

I really only say this to demonstrate that all of this, including baptism, requires human interaction. Others have commented on here to say that it's not man doing it, but God. And yet, it doesn't happen automatically. It requires people to say: "yes, this child should enter into the New Covenant" and take action accordingly. I look at verses like those in 1 Corinthians 7 and it leads me to believe that children are made holy through the belief of the parent and not necessarily through any particular act (such as baptism). I mentioned this in a response to Vicar Bill a couple of comments down this page. Verses like this make me think that salvation hinges not on adherence to Covenantal rules or "requirements", but on belief and faith.

One difference for me, from the perspective of someone who was baptized later on, is that I can remember my baptism. There has been talk in some of these comments about baptism being a beautiful illustration of the grace of God, and I agree. Imagine if you could remember that beautiful illustration happening to you personally. Imagine if viewing future baptisms brought up a clear memory of that same event occurring in your own life.

I'm not entirely sure I agree that the stats would be similar between the two groups you mention. From my experience, it seems like churches that believe in baptizing later in life baptize fewer members than churches who believe in infant baptism. As a former baptist, I know there were more parent/baby dedication ceremonies than there were baptisms. I'd imagine the same would hold true for infant baptisms vs. confirmations (the affirmation of those baptisms) in Lutheran churches. If half your group was baptized as young adults, they did this as a conscious choice (granted, at times they are persuaded to do so by their parents, but still) whereas the half that was baptized as infants made no such choice. Perhaps a better comparison would be limiting the half who were baptized as infants to those who were both baptized as infants and later confirmed. I imagine if you took baptized and confirmed 50 year olds and compared them with 50 year olds who were baptized later in life, you'd have a pretty even comparison.

"Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ."

So, too with baptism, the child is passive. There is no action that they take to bring themselves into the family of God–rather, it is done for them.

Does that have your spidey sense tingling?

My friends, who ascribe to a "believer's baptism," will still bring their infant children to church and have them "dedicated" at a worship service. There, before the entire congregation, they will promise to raise their children in the Christian faith and teach them the important things they need to know about their own faith tradition. The congregation will also promise to help the parents do this. Then (hopefully) at an age of accountability, those children will accept Jesus as their "personal Lord and Savior" and ask to be baptized. Of course, this sounds very similar to what we call baptism and confirmation (affirmation of baptism) in our tradition.

I've always thought that it might make for an interesting study (if it hasn't been already done) to look at a group of folks at (let's say) age 50, half who were baptized as infants and half who were baptized as young adults, and see how many of them have maintained a solid relationship with God and the Church. I would almost venture a guess that the stats would be very similar between these two groups.

What I truly believe is that parents who take seriously the promises that they make at their child's baptism (or dedication), and a young person who truly desires to continue in a relationship with God that was nurtured by those parents and that congregation to the point of confirmation (baptism), will ultimately witness a solid life of faith that will further grow and flourish.

It's interesting that you bring up problem of the "life insurance policy". Back when I was a baptist, I actually went on a mission trip to, of all places, Connecticut. Now, I'd been on plenty of mission trips by that point, to lots of places all over the globe. I couldn't understand why a random town in Connecticut would be a target of our missions team.

Only when we began talking to the town's occupants did we realize: the vast majority of them had no Biblical understanding of grace or faith in Christ. And yet, the vast majority believed they were saved. They had been baptized as an infant in the local Catholic church.

I'm not trying to further divide the church with a comment like this, or point fingers, I'm simply describing a scenario that I can attest to first-hand. There are people out there who have been baptized as an infant and truly believe that getting wet as a baby took care of the matter in God's eyes.

Another example I have are some old friends who never attend church and make no effort to nurture their children in the faith, yet invited us to the baptism of their infant daughter in a Lutheran church. It was my first Lutheran baptism, and was the first time that questions like this surfaced for me. They requested a private baptism in the evening, from a pastor they barely knew and at a church they never attended. When they had no intent of nurturing the child in the faith, what was the purpose of this baptism?

I have an appreciation for the confirmation process in the Lutheran church (and others). I do believe that infant baptism, when combined with belief and faith nurtured by parents and the church, sufficiently meets the intent of the scriptures. I still believe, however, that a danger exists for some to misunderstand what happens at baptism and, more importantly, what does NOT happen at baptism.

As always, thanks for your comments.