What do We Believe?
"And thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first
commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other
commandment greater than these."
In
deed it can be said that we strive to
follow the admonition of Paul in Phillippians 1:8:
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are
honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever
things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any
virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Our
History and Liturgy
The Episcopal Church is a branch of
the one, Holy, catholic (universal) and Apostolic
Church instituted by Jesus Christ. It traces its history to the time of Christ.
Before the sixteenth-century Reformation in Western Europe, the Episcopal
Church and the Roman Catholic Church were one in the same. The Christian church
in a given country or region at that time was customarily described as the
church of the region, such as the Church of Gaul, the Church of Spain, or the
Church of England (Latin: ecclesia anglicana). After
the Reformation, the English national church continued to be called the
"Church of England", but it repudiated the supremacy of the Pope. It
retained to a high degree, however, its ancient liturgy and Episcopal
organization.
The Episcopal Church in the United
States is part of the wordwide Anglican Communion.
With over seventy million members, the Anglican Communion is one of the three
largest faiths in the world.
Protestant,
Yet Catholic
The word "episcopal"
is derived from the Greek "επίσκοπος",
transliterated "ep�skopos",
which is used in religious contexts to refer to a bishop. Episcopal churches
are churches that use an episcopalian
church governance, meaning that bishops are generally regarded as being in
"Apostolic Succession" from the first followers of Jesus.
From the Bible we read that Christ
entrusted the leadership of the community of believers, and the obligation to
transmit and preserve the "deposit of faith" (tradition and
scripture) to the apostles, and the apostles passed on this role by ordaining
bishops after them. This is what apostolic succession truly is.
The important role of apostolic
succession is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles teaching
and authority would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told
Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to
faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this
passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession�his
own generation, Timothy's generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The unbrokenness
of apostolic succession is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that
the "gates of hell" will not prevail against the Church (See
Matthew 16:18). A disruption or end of apostolic succession would mean that
this promise was not kept--which we know to be false.
Episcopalians (Anglicans) stand
squarely in the Reformed tradition, yet consider their
Church just as directly descended from the Early Church as the Roman Catholic
or Eastern Orthodox churches. Episcopalians celebrate the "mass" in
ancient ways nearly identical to the Roman Catholic tradition.
This lovely liturgy or ritual (used
in similar forms by Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians
and others) has been observed by Christians since ancient times. Indeed, it can
be said that we follow Paul�s
admonition: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions
which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter"(2
Thess. 2:15, cf. 1 Cor. 11:2). Many find comfort, peace and hope in these
ancient traditions and prayers that have been performed by faithful Christians
throughout the centuries.
Worship in the Episcopal Church is
said to be "liturgical," which means that
the congregation follows the service and prays together. This lovely ancient
liturgy (or ritual) is the most effective vehicle for giving expression to the
worship of heaven as it is described in the Book of Revelation in which the use
of white robes and incense in a setting of considerable beauty is described.
Liturgical worship is dignified and
respectful yet it empowers Christians to use all of their senses in worship -
worship with the whole person and not just the mind.
Liturgy can be confusing, however,
or difficult to follow for the first-time visitor. For this reason,
Episcopalians use "The Book of Common Prayer" to make the ancient
liturgy easy to follow.
Worship
in One's Own Language
Anglicans believe that Christians
should be able to worship God and read the Bible in their native language,
which for many Episcopalians, is English, rather than Latin or Greek, the two
earlier, "official" languages of Christianity. Episcopalians use the Holy
Bible and The Book of Common Prayer as translated into many tongues throughout
the world. In the 1960s, when Roman Catholicism adopted a vernacular mass, many
translations of the latin
prayers followed the form of translations already in The Book of Common Prayer.
All
Are Welcome
All baptized Christians-no matter
what age, and no matter of what Christian denomination-are welcome to
"receive communion," that is, eat the bread and drink the wine with
the congregation, regardless of which Christian Church they were baptized in.
Following Christian tradition,
Episcopalians my take communion in one of three ways: 1) the supplicant may
receive the host (bread) into the mouth directly and then drink the wine 2) the
supplicant may receive the host into their right hand and then drink the wine
3) the supplicant may receive the host by "intinction"
--receiving the host in one's right hand and then dipping the host into the
wine. After communion, it is tradition to make the ancient "sign of the
cross" in homage to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Scripture,
Tradition, and Reason
The Bible teaches us in parables and
weaves a sometimes difficult to understand history of religious experience and
understanding:
The Anglican approach to reading and
interpreting the Bible was first articulated by Richard Hooker, also in the
16th Century. While Christians universally acknowledge the Holy Bible as the
Word of God and completely sufficient to our reconciliation to God, what the
Bible says must always speak to us in our own time and place.
Episcopalians believe that every
Christian must build an understanding and relationship with God's Word in the
Bible, and to do that, God has given us intelligence and our own experience,
which we refer to as "Reason." The Bible tells us "I applied
mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of
things�" (Eccl. 7:
25)
Based on the text of the Bible
itself, and what Christians have taught us about it through the ages, we then
must sort out our own understanding of it as it relates to our own lives.
The need to build your own
relationship with God and a personal understanding of the scriptures is also
based on the fact that the King James translation of the Bible was based on an
imperfect set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. Scholars now know
that the "Textus Receptus"
(from which the King James Version was translated from) contains errors, which
means the King James Version contains errors. This is in direct contradiction
to the claim that the King James Bible is the only authoritative version. In
the most extreme fundamentalist claim, the KJV is the only completely preserved
version in the world. So if you want the most accurate knowledge of God's Word,
you would have to read English.
The KJV actually was revised many
times between the date of its first publication in 1611 and the publication of
the Revised Version, which was published between 1881-1885 There have been at
least five subsequent revisions to the KJV since. Which do you follow?
For some additional details on the
NKJV, see http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html.
Due to the errors in the Hebrew and
Greek texts from which the KJV were translated, the KJV contains some texts
that are not consistent with Jesus' genuine teachings and other genuine New
Testament teachings, as represented in the earliest Greek texts of the New
Testament. For example:
Sisters
in the Priesthood
There is not one scripture in the
Holy Bible that forbids women from preaching. On the contrary, there are many
verses that encourage both men and women to preach the Gospel. The Bible
teaches that God is not a respecter of persons, and He will use any and all who
will yield to Him, regardless of race, age, or sex. In understanding this
Biblical truth we must learn to differentiate between the historical traditions
of men vs. the Word of God on the subject.
The crying need of the hour is for
more laborers. It is a trick of the enemy to try to down rate thousands of our
faithful laborers just because they were born females.
It is an undeniable fact that God
has called and anointed thousands of women to preach the Gospel. Many gospel
organizations have hundreds of licensed and ordained women who are preaching,
teaching, evangelizing, pastoring, and doing mission
work with the signs following their ministry. God is using them for the
salvation of the lost, deliverance from sin, gifts of the Spirit, and infilling
of the Holy Spirit.
The Bible says, "Touch not
mine anointed and do my prophets no harm." And may we be reminded of
the Scripture in Acts 5:39, "If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it;
lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."
When someone says, "God does
not call women to preach," it is like saying that God does not baptize
with the Holy Spirit today. We know better, because we have witnessed and
experienced it with our own ears and eyes.
One would be hesitant to condemn
female preachers, lest one be found to be fighting against God, and be
committing the vile sin of attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the
devil:
Therefore we learn from the original
translation, from the Bible interpretation, and from the dictionary, that to
prophesy means more than to tell the future, but it is to speak publicly about
the past, present, or future. It is to preach under the anointing of the Holy
Spirit.
The Old and New Testament prophets
and prophetesses were preachers of God's Word.
Even if the words prophet and
preacher could be separated, how could anyone prophesy to bring exhortation,
comfort and edification to the church, if she were forbidden to speak in church
and was to keep silent?
Would God inspire and anoint someone
to do something that was wrong and sinful?
* (There is a difference between a
prophet, and the gift of prophecy.)
God called and used women preachers
in the Old Testament.
God called and used women preachers
in the New Testament.
There is no sound reason why a woman
or man should not preach the Gospel. There is a desperate need in the church
for more workers. Laborers are few, and God will use any and all who will go
for Him. Some say God will not use a woman to preach, because "The woman
was deceived," but remember Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man
sin entered into the world." It seems to indicate that Adam was just as
guilty as Eve in the fall of man. If anyone should be kept from preaching
because of sin, it would be Adam. But God does not forbid anyone from
preaching, because of Adam's or Eve's sin.
1 Cor. 14: 34-35 does not say
anything about women preachers. If Paul intended this verse as a general rule
to bar all women from speaking in church, then they cannot teach Sunday School,
testify, pray, sing, or even make announcements inside a church --which would
contradict the rest of the Bible (Acts 2:4; Acts 2:16-18).
Paul was rather dealing with a
particular problem in the church. Women were not educated as were the men in
that day; therefore the women would talk back and forth to their husbands in
church and ask questions concerning the sermon. Paul said, "If they
will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for
women to speak in the church." If they want to talk things over let
them wait until they get home. This rule is still good for the church today,
where people are talking and causing confusion in the church service. They
should not speak in church. (Not in the back of the church either before or
after services.)
If a woman cannot speak in church,
then she cannot speak in Sunday School, prayer
meeting, Bible study, young people's service, etc. --for who can deny that
Sunday School, Bible study, Prayer meeting, and Youth work are parts of church?
Christ's Church is not a building, but rather it is found where two or three
are gathered together in His name, whether at a street meeting, in a tent, a
home, church, classroom or anywhere else.
1 Timothy 2:12 is not a blanket rule
for all women of all churches. If it were, then the women could not speak at
all, for the same verse that tells them not to teach also tells them to be
silent.
If all women had to keep silent in
church, then that would be promoting disobedience to God, for they could not
teach, pray, testify, sing, exhort, do personal work, or anything that involves
speaking in church.
Whenever an interpretation to a
verse contradicts the rest of the teaching of the Bible, we know this
interpretation is incorrect, for the Holy Spirit will never contradict His own
Word.
This is the chief verse that is used
to oppose women preaching and yet it says nothing about preaching, nor does it
say anything about a public worship or church service. But, on the contrary,
this verse is giving instructions to wives as to how they were to conduct
themselves in regard to their husband. Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:35, "And
if they will LEARN anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Now
he states in 1 Tim. 2:12 that the woman should not usurp authority over the
man. Paul is dealing with more of a home problem at the time rather than a
church problem. We agree that marriage is a partnership and a woman should not
usurp authority over the marriage by herself.
It is also to be understood that if
anyone, whether man or woman, is usurping authority over the leadership of the
church, she or he is to be silent, and not to teach, or act in such a way that
would create discord in the assembly.
Some have used Titus 1:6-7, "If
any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children...",
but there is a difference between a preacher and a bishop. For
I was an Evangelist and now am a Pastor, but I am not a Bishop (Overseer), and
most Pastors are not.
If God called a single man with no
children to be a Bishop, as Paul was, surely this verse is not opposed to it,
nor would this scripture oppose a woman Bishop if she was called of God for the
work, as was Deborah.
What this verse does teach is that a
person who is to be a Bishop must not have two living companions, either
husbands or wives.
The Bible often speaks of "man"
when it refers to both men and and women inclusively.
The word "mankind" also includes both men and women. For an
example of this word usage see 1 Cor. 13:1 - "Though
I speak with the tongues of MEN and angels...." This word "MEN"
includes women as well, for we do not have one language for men and another for
women.
To condemn women preachers and women
church workers is a serious offense, because God has stamped His approval on
them by His Spirit over and over again, and who is man to fight against the
Spirit of God?
To condemn women preachers and women
church workers is in a sense to claim they are doing wrong and committing
sin...and all those who support them and listen to them are having a part in
that sin.
In light of the abundance of
Biblical evidences, we admit women to every level of office in the church in
fulfillment of the biblical prophesy in Acts 2:17:
"And it shall come to pass in
the last days, saith God, I
will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters
shall prophesy..."
The
Intercession of Saints
We do not consider the practice of
asking Mary and saints in heaven to pray for us as communion dividing. It is
important to note that we do not pray "to" Mary or any saints, but
the Bible itself contains many references to invoking those in heaven and
asking them to pray "for" or "with" us.
Thus, in Psalm 103 we pray, "Bless
the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the
voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his
will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in the opening verses of Psalms 148 we
pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in
the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him,
all his host!"
Not only do those in heaven pray
with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that "the
twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down
before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense,
which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in
heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Angels do the same thing: "[An]
angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was
given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden
altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of
the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).
Jesus himself warned us not to
offend small children, because their guardian angels have guaranteed
intercessory access to the Father: "See that you do not despise one of
these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the
face of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10).
Because he is the only God-man and
the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and
God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our
fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1-4) --"prayer lists"
are a vivid example of Christians praying with and for each other.
In particular, we should ask the
intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their
sanctification completed, for the "prayer of a righteous man has great
power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).
Passages from the early Church show
not only clearly recognized biblical teaching that those in heaven can and do
intercede for us, but that early Christians also applied this teaching in their
own daily prayer life.
Why
Christians Refer to Priests as "Father"
Members of some churches claim that
when Christians address priests as "Father", they are engaging
in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father
on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).
What critics ignore is that in the
very next line we read in Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called masters:
for one is your Master, even Christ" Does this mean we cannot address
little boys as "Master so-and-so"? What about terms like "Master
Sergeant", "Master of Ceremonies" or "Webmaster"? Are
these people sinful?.
To understand the "acceptable
and respectful" use of these terms one must read the scriptures in
full context. In relation to the word "father", it now becomes clear
that there are three Biblically "acceptable and respectful"
uses of the word "father" in the Bible.
Biblical Use #1: Heavenly Father
An example of this use would be "Our
father who art in Heaven".
Biblical Use #2: Earthly Father
Would God
want us to deny a little boy or girl the opportunity to say "I love
father" to their parent?
What about "Father's Day", is that sinful? Can we not say
"father-in-law"? The Bible tells us to "Honour
thy father and thy mother". Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn't
forbidding these uses of the word "father" which are a sign of love
and respect .
Biblical Use #3: Religious or Church
Father
Interestingly, Priests do not hold
an official title of "father". The word "father" is used in
the Church as an unofficial sign of respect and is consistent with the third
Biblical teaching on the "acceptable and respectful" use of
the term.
In the Bible Joseph tells his
brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of
Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me
a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of
Egypt" (Gen. 45:8). Here is a clear example where the term
"father" is being used in the Bible as a sign of respect.
Job indicates he played a fatherly
role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I
searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And
God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim,
the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . .
and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will
commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants
of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20-21).
This type of fatherhood not only
applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like
Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those
who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries,
"My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to
heaven in a whirlwind" (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later,
Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs.
6:21).
Priests follow the apostles'
Biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my
son" or "my child". In order for there to be a "my
son" logic tells us there has to be a "my father"
See: (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John
2:1; 3 John 4). These three uses of the word "father" are clearly
Biblical and tell us that Matt. 23:9 must be taken in context and in light of
all the other evidences in the Bible.
Baptism
What is the meaning of the word
"baptism"? The Encyclop�dia Britannica defines baptism this
way:
"a sacrament of admission to the Christian Church. The forms and
rituals of the various churches vary, but Baptism almost invariably involves
the use of water and the Trinitarian invocation, 'I baptize you: In the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'...�
The word "baptism" is
derived from the Greek word, "bapto", or
"baptizo", meaning "to wash",
"to dip" or "to immerse". The first time the word baptize
was used in the context of religion occurred as a result of its incorporation
into the Jewish culture in Greece. The Jewish faith was somewhat complicated
with ceremonies, rituals, festivals, and laws. The term baptize was used to
describe the ritual known as "ceremonial washing". Today we
would not say, "Go baptize your hands before you eat." Instead, we
would say, "Go wash your hands before you eat." The term baptize was
used anciently to describe this function of washing. Paul speaks of "the
washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out
upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Titus 3:5f; compare
Eph.5:26; 1 Cor. 6:11; Heb. 10:22) Saul's baptism involved a washing (Acts
22:16; Lk. 11:38). It signifies, therefore, that
washing is of the essential idea behind the sacrament of baptism.
Scripture uses the term baptize both literally and figuratively. It is employed
in a metaphorical sense in Acts 1:5, where the abundance of the grace of the
Holy Ghost is signified, and also in Luke 12:50, where the term is referred to
the sufferings of Christ in His Passion. Otherwise in the New Testament, the
root word from which baptism is derived is used to designate the "laving
with water", and it is employed, when speaking of Jewish lustrations,
and of the baptism of John, as well as of the Christian sacrament of baptism
(Hebrews 6:2; Mark 7:4).
Archaeological evidence of the
earliest Christian baptisms does not depict baptism by immersion. If the
recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river
while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in
ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring.
Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion.
The entire record of the early Church�as shown in the New Testament, in
other writings, and in monumental evidence�indicates the mode
of baptism was not restricted to immersion.
Other archaeological evidence
confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in
Jesus� hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from
the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person.
Baptism can be administered by
pouring water on the head of, or immersion of, the candidate and saying at the
same time: �I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit.� Priests or deacons administer baptism, though in a case of
necessity anyone may baptize. The Priest or deacon and/or recipient could,
but do not need to stand in water during the
administration of the sacrament of baptism as some sects claim. In fact, a
requirement to physically "stand in water" cannot be scripturally
supported.
Some so-called fundamentalists
attempt to criticize the Christian Church's practice of baptizing infants.
According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to
be administered only after one has undergone a "born again"
experience --that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal
Lord and Savior."
As fundamentalists see it, baptism
is not a sacrament (in the true Biblical sense of the word), but an ordinance.
As an "ordinance" it doesn't convey the true grace it Biblically
symbolizes; rather, it is merely a "public manifestation of the person's action".
Since, as fundamentalists see it, only an adult or older child can be
converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not
yet reached the "age of reason". Interestingly, this "age of
reason" differs between fundamentalist groups as the Bible gives no
"age of reason" in relation to the sacrament of baptism.
Since the New Testament era,
Christ's Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is
a sacrament (not an "ordinance") which accomplishes several things,
the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual
sin-only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are
incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older
persons.
Peter explained what happens at
baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this
teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your
children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to
him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash
away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are
universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the
necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly
stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal
of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through
the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Christ Calls All to Baptism
The historic Christian Church has
always held that Christ's law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus
said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and
the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable
of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let
the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom
of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
More detail is given in Luke's
account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even
infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they
rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, 'Let the children come to
me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God'"
(Luke 18:15-16).
Now fundamentalists say this event
does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to
which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older
translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me,"
which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists
conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably,
capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were
bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron
de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha
means "infants"-children who are quite unable to approach
Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to
"accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is
precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants
and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious
act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to
the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs
the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a
conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can
come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should
be asked, can infants and young children be excluded
from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto
me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Infant Baptism Replaces the Jewish
Law of Circumcision
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism
has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). In that passage, he refers to baptism
as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision
made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised
under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few
converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen
circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
This comparison between who could
receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament,
if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be
circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must
believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into
Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in
which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian
households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they
will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have
faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to
have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one
will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul's reference to baptism
as "the circumcision of Christ" --that is, the Christian
equivalent of circumcision.
Were Only Adults Baptized in the
Holy Bible?
Fundamentalists are reluctant to
admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but
when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as
meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally
enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are
individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults.
This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning-there were no
"cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian
homes.
Even in the books of the New
Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when
children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never-not even once-find
an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon
making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the
children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been
"baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not
the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents
joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are
no such records in the Bible.
Specific
Biblical References to Infant Baptism?
But, one might ask, does the Bible
ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are
clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul's
preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts
16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had
converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are
told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all
his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians,
Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households
or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children
too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he
and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must
have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household
baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact
age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than
infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there
were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger
than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially
if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth
control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if
there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be
explicit.
Present Church practice accords
perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the
third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is
given even to infants" (Holilies on
Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the
opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after
birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing
infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its
tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal terpretation
of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
No Cry of "Invention!"
None of the Fathers or councils of
the early Church were claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or
tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary
and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only
uncertainty seemed to be when-exactly-an infant should be baptized. Further
evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is
the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of
the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers
condemning it?
But fundamentalists try to ignore
the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the
legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by
saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having
faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction
and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19-20), but his general law on
the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of
baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements
of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable
to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are
incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of
circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive
it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.
Furthermore, the Bible never says,
"Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it
simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet
fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish
to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the fundamentalist
himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for
salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Church for making the exact same
exception for baptism, especially if, as Anglicans believe, baptism is an "instrument
of salvation".
It becomes apparent, then, that the
fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the
Bible's strictures, but of the demands of fundamentalism's idea of salvation.
In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too
are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the
earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those
who criticize the Church's teaching on infant baptism. The Church is merely
continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the
words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them;
for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18