Thursday 25 March 2010

What about those who don't understand?

An interesting question has been posed: "Is there a fundamental difference between giving the sacrament of baptism to an unknowing infant on the say-so of a parent, and giving the sacrament of communion to an unknowing elderly person on the say-so of a care home nurse?"
     
This is a really challenging question, two sacraments applied to (unknowing) people at the opposite end of life. One before the age of cognisance and the other having reached and passed it (I'm assuming those under consideration had no perception problems during their life). Both are examples of grace and this is where the discussion really begins.
    
I have my ideas and thoughts, but I will save them for a little later . . . . 
     
The floor is all yours . . . . .
     
tootallburd contributes this to the discussion:
     
"Oh this could be interesting. I was christened and baptised by immersion! But God didn't seem to mind, and I and the congregation benefited from it. However the man in my life who is Lutheran/Episcopalian thinks I could be bound for hell. 
I read David Wrights book "What has Infant Baptism done to Baptism?" which gives a good balanced argument for both adult and Infant baptism. I am looking forward to hearing your views."
     
UKViewer  adds:
     
"An interesting question to pose. I understand that Infant Baptism became a custom from the Early Church, which is now difficult to discard. 
     
I was always taught that in an emergency, anyone can carry out a Baptism in "The Name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit". Particularly if life is in danger. But the intention of the Parents for their child have to be considered. If they are not practicing Christians, how do you cut across their beliefs (or lack of them), to satisfy the need to have an infant freed from Original Sin.
     
The Catholic doctrine of Limbo springs to mind as one real issue that I had with them - the idea that a loving and merciful God would condemn an unbaptised baby, to remain in Limbo and never to see the face of God, is so cruel, that I could accept it then, let alone now. So, my idea is that God will suffer them to come to him anyway, baptised or unbaptised.
     
I am aware that the Bible says that the children of 'Believers' are God's children, and I suspect that on that basis, I would feel free to baptise if was understood that the Parents were believers and would have wished for baptism. I would think that Baptism of someone elderly, who has lost the functional ability of being able to think rationally or to communicate their intentions, must be much more problematic?
    
If they had stated an intention to be baptised or a wish to come to Jesus prior to losing their faculties, than it could be done in good conscience and faith - but if they had never stated that wish when able, can the word of a family member or nurse be relied on to carry out that action?
    
My mind would be set on Baptism if asked in those circumstances as whether Infant or Elderly, they remain God's Children."


ps. I would like to extend this a little further, but I will wait until we have developed stuff here in case I queer the pitch.

2 comments:

Jenni said...

Oh this could be interesting. I was christened and baptised by immersion! But God didn't seem to mind, and I and the congrgation benefited from it .
However the man in my life who is Lutheran/Episcopalian thinks I could be bound for hell.
I read David Wrights book "What has Infant Baptism done to Baptism?" which gives a good balanced argument for both adult and Infant baptism. I am looking forward to hearing your views.

UKViewer said...

An interesting question to pose. I understand that Infant Baptism became a custom from the Early Church, which is now difficult to discard.

I was always taught that in an emergency, anyone can carry out a Baptism in "The Name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit". Particularly if life is in danger. But the intention of the Parents for their child have to be considered. If they are not practicing Christians, how do you cut across their beliefs (or lack of them), to satisfy the need to have an infant freed from Original Sin.

The Catholic doctrine of Limbo springs to mind as one real issue that I had with them - the idea that a loving and merciful God would condemn an unbaptized baby, to remain in Limbo and never to see the face of God, is so cruel, that I could accept it then, let alone now.

So, my idea is that God will suffer them to come to him anyway, baptized or unbaptized.

I am aware that the Bible says that the children of 'Believers' are Gods children, and I suspect that on that basis, I would feel free to baptise if was understood that the Parents were believers and would have wished for baptism.

I would think that Baptism of someone elderly, who has lost the functional ability of being able to think rationally or to communicate their intentions, must be much more problematic?

If they had stated an intention to be baptised or a wish to come to Jesus prior to losing their faculties, than it could be done in good conscience and faith - but if they had never stated that wish when able, can the word of a family member or nurse be relied on to carry out that action?

My mind would be set on Baptism if asked in those circumstances as whether Infant or Elderly, they remain God's Children.