Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.
Update 41 page 5.
In Update 41:
Burning Boats?
CW Baptism
For infants?
Not out of mind
Baptism & Unity
Praxis Pack
What is Baptism?
Initiation initiatives
Is baptism appropriate for infants?
Rev'd Dr Nigel Rowe reflects on Rev'd Jess Stubenbord's thoughts.
I was very interested to read “My dilemma with CW baptisms” in the spring issue of Update. I myself am not familiar with the CW Rite, as I live in Wales, but I feel that it is gravely defective if it does not teach the Anglican doctrine of baptism, which, as Mr Stubenbord says, is contained in the 39 Articles. Article 27 clearly states that Baptism is a sign, not a cause, of Regeneration, because regeneration is a spiritual transformation whereby a person dies to sin and rises again to righteousness. This of course is impossible in the case of infants, and so it would seem inappropriate to administer the baptismal rite to infants. It is sometimes said that infant baptism heralds what we hope will happen in the future, namely a spiritual transformation as the result of the influence of parents and godparents. But that is obviously by no means certain. In fact infant baptism can be regarded as nothing more than a concession to the (misguided) wishes of parents.
The Article also states that those who receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church. The word “rightly” here surely means “with the proper dispositions”, i.e. with the intention to lead a new life, but that of course only applies to those who have reached years of discretion. (The word “rightly” is used in the same sense in Article 28, referring to the reception of Communion.) The true Church is thus distinguished from the Church which consists of nominal Christians. This implies that infant baptism does not admit to membership of the Church in the true sense, i.e. of those who are committed to Christian discipleship. This again is a serious objection to infant baptism.
I realise that my own position as a retired cleric is much easier than that of clergy in charge of parishes, because no pressure can be put on me to administer Baptism to infants. In fact I have told the Vicar of the parish where I live that I do not feel able to baptise infants.
Incidentally, it would appear that the last part of Article 27 contradicts the first in saying that infant baptism is agreeable to the institution of Christ. Where, I ask, are we told that Christ instituted infant baptism?
William Temple, in Readings in St John’s Gospel (p255), said “the justification (of infant baptism) though abundant, is not evident.” Was there ever a clearer instance of shelving a problem instead of solving it? If the justification is not evident, how can it be abundant? Does he mean that infant baptism is justified as a concession to the wishes of parents, even though it is theologically indefensible?
Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
This web page was last updated on 14th January 2003.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.