Presbyterian and Infant Baptism

[Pacbox]

I was watching an episode of Close to Home on Friday and they showed a baby being baptized and that the parents were Presbyterian.

Now my question is do Presbyterians baptize infants or do they prefer that the person be able to make that decision when they are able?

Please, only Presbyterians or those that are familiar with Presbyterianism reply as I already am well informed to the Catholic teaching. I am curious to what Presbyterians believe in regards to infant baptism and want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

(And yes I know that TV isn’t the best place to get info but it peaked my interest and thought this forum would be a good place to ask.)

Thank you.

 

[cestusdei]

I graduated from a Presbyterian seminary, so I think I count. They do believe in infant baptism and most are baptised soon after birth. They use the Trinitarian formula. When I became Catholic I did not need to be rebaptized.

 

[Pacbox]

Thank you.

 

[Contarini]

Pacbox:

I was watching an episode of Close to Home on Friday and they showed a baby being baptized and that the parents were Presbyterian.

Now my question is do Presbyterians baptize infants or do they prefer that the person be able to make that decision when they are able?

Presbyterians believe in infant baptism. Their tradition teaches that baptism is the equivalent of circumcision–it’s the sign of the covenant. Because Presbyterians believe that only the elect (those who will persevere to the end) receive regenerating grace, they obviously don’t believe that baptism regenerates. But many would say (and Calvin, whom Presbyterians regard as a Doctor of the Church, taught this) that the sacraments offer the grace they represent. That grace is only received through faith, but it is objectively offered by the sacraments. So historically some Presbyterians at least don’t believe that baptism is “just a symbol” in the way that more extreme Protestants do. But to be fair, most Presbyterians in the past couple centuries at least probably do think that it is nothing more than a sign of the covenant.

Calvin believed (and many traditional Presbyterians followed him in this) that God’s promises to the parents apply to the children as well. This is not conditional on baptism–unbaptized infants are saved just as baptized infants are, as long as their parents are believers. Today–and even in the 19th century–most Presbyterians believe/d that all infants are saved without exception. In fact, the “mainline” Presbyterians tend to be quite liberal and many of them believe in universal salvation. The great modern Reformed theologian, Karl Barth, who is usually not considered a liberal (though more conservative folks consider him one, of course), believed in universal salvation (and the Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar was influenced by him, although he couldn’t go as far, obviously). On the other hand, Barth actually came to disagree with infant baptism, so he’s not typical of the Reformed position . . . . (“Refoirmed” are identical with what are often called “Calvinists”; this is a larger family of Protestantism of which Presbyterianism is the most important and middle-of-the-road English-speaking representative.)

I’m not a Presbyterian, but I’m a historian of the Reformation and I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Martin Bucer, one of the founders of the Reformed tradition.

Edwin

 

[tradconvert]

I’m a convert from presbyterianism and I know I was baptised as an infant and that is consistent with standard presbyterian practice. It also uses the trinitarian formula, but unlike Catholic baptism the water is sprinkled and does not flow on the head of the person being baptised, so I was very happy when the priest receiving me into the Catholic faith gave me a conditional baptism.