Is Christening biblical? Where is it in the Bible?
- Thread starter Azawah
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Welcome to CC, Azawah...
If by "Christening" you mean the ritual around naming infants of believers, it is not in the Bible. It is somewhat akin to infant baptism, on which there are varied opinions. I don't hold to infant baptism as I don't see it in the Bible; others disagree.
The church I attend practices dedication, where parents make a commitment before the Lord to raise the child to love and serve the Lord. Though optional, most parents choose to do it if they are significantly involved in the church. It also serves to remind the congregation that we may be involved in that child's development at any stage.
If by "Christening" you mean the ritual around naming infants of believers, it is not in the Bible. It is somewhat akin to infant baptism, on which there are varied opinions. I don't hold to infant baptism as I don't see it in the Bible; others disagree.
The church I attend practices dedication, where parents make a commitment before the Lord to raise the child to love and serve the Lord. Though optional, most parents choose to do it if they are significantly involved in the church. It also serves to remind the congregation that we may be involved in that child's development at any stage.
-
2
- Show all
Thanks and so far I like the interaction.
Mark 16:16 He that beleeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued, but he that beleeueth not, shall be damned.
An infant is not at the age of accountability to make that decision and parents can’t make it for them. If it’s not benefiting the child then why do it?
Blessings
Mark 16:16 He that beleeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued, but he that beleeueth not, shall be damned.
An infant is not at the age of accountability to make that decision and parents can’t make it for them. If it’s not benefiting the child then why do it?
Blessings
-
2
- Show all
@Azawah
as far as i know even the people who do hold to infant baptism agree that it's not in the Bible; they say it's implied by something else that isn't in the Bible either, but they think that other thing is kind of implied by some things in the Bible, and they likewise agree that the second thing isn't actually in the Bible either.
churches who believe in pedobaptism claim that it is a practice passed down directly from the apostles and has always been the practice of the true church. we do know that infant baptism has been practiced by at least some people in the church as early as a few hundred years after Christ ascended. we know this because we have very early writings by church leaders telling people they should not be doing it. this means it was never universal in the church.
the people who practice it today will admit that it does not have any actual effect and doesn't symbolize anything as it pertains to the child being baptized, that it is only meaningful to the parents and/or the congregation the child is to be raised among, while simultaneously not being *actually* meaningful at all but just symbolic of something they hope might happen one day to the child but can't have happened by the time the infant is baptized and can in no way be guaranteed to ever happen to the child at all.
what the practice amounts to, then, essentially, is to say 'ok parents, this will make you feel better about the uncertain future of your child: we'll perform this ritual and then everyone in the congregation will pretend like the thing it symbolizes has actually happened, while of course not believing it has, because it can't happen to an infant, but will all treat this child for their whole life as though the thing this ritual symbolized, which has definitely not happened, has in fact happened'
thus the child is raised as though he doesn't need the symbolized thing which has definitely not occurred to ever actually occur.
why am i talking so much about infant baptism? because, what is christening? why do people do it? what's the theology and actual doctrine of it?
as far as i know even the people who do hold to infant baptism agree that it's not in the Bible; they say it's implied by something else that isn't in the Bible either, but they think that other thing is kind of implied by some things in the Bible, and they likewise agree that the second thing isn't actually in the Bible either.
churches who believe in pedobaptism claim that it is a practice passed down directly from the apostles and has always been the practice of the true church. we do know that infant baptism has been practiced by at least some people in the church as early as a few hundred years after Christ ascended. we know this because we have very early writings by church leaders telling people they should not be doing it. this means it was never universal in the church.
the people who practice it today will admit that it does not have any actual effect and doesn't symbolize anything as it pertains to the child being baptized, that it is only meaningful to the parents and/or the congregation the child is to be raised among, while simultaneously not being *actually* meaningful at all but just symbolic of something they hope might happen one day to the child but can't have happened by the time the infant is baptized and can in no way be guaranteed to ever happen to the child at all.
what the practice amounts to, then, essentially, is to say 'ok parents, this will make you feel better about the uncertain future of your child: we'll perform this ritual and then everyone in the congregation will pretend like the thing it symbolizes has actually happened, while of course not believing it has, because it can't happen to an infant, but will all treat this child for their whole life as though the thing this ritual symbolized, which has definitely not happened, has in fact happened'
thus the child is raised as though he doesn't need the symbolized thing which has definitely not occurred to ever actually occur.
why am i talking so much about infant baptism? because, what is christening? why do people do it? what's the theology and actual doctrine of it?
-
1
- Show all
Sad thing is is that some parents do actually believe that. I spoke to a man just the other day and that was his confirmation and explanation of being baptized as an infant, but once I helped him understand that you have to be of age to make that decision he simply agreed and said it makes sense. So now he knows!
Blessings
Blessings
-
1
-
1
- Show all
it seems to me that baptizing infants, christening them, and dedicating them are all reflective of the same purpose - to address trepidation inherent to Christian parents wondering, hoping, fretting and praying about the salvation of their children.
i gave something not entirely unlike the theology behind it in my previous post, and you may hear it talked about from some people or even preacher / teachers a little differently. they may claim the act of water baptism itself saves, and suggest that passages which say things like 'believe and be saved, you and your whole household' ((Acts 16:31)) prove that infants should be baptized, because it says your whole household. there are a number of things wrong with such an assertion, though, and the theologians of these denominations admit as much and have other more esoteric explanations involving all the implied and assumed 'covenantal' things i alluded to in what i wrote a moment ago. all of which intellectually acquiesce that, yes, it is not effective, no, it doesn't have any real meaning for the child but yes, really signifies nothing more than a promise on the part of the parents and/or congregation that they intend to try to bring up the child in the faith.
now - you certainly won't hear it expressed this way, because of what it seems to me is the intent: to console the natural concern of the parents about whether the child will believe the gospel and be saved. it would be counterproductive to go into the theology and hold a service where you make it clear to everyone gathered to perform a ritual that it's ultimately not going to actually effect anything.
the argument, in my mind, becomes about the value of ritual itself, its benefit to the people involved versus how honest it is to act out something you don't actually believe, as though you do actually believe it. and i think that's how we get pedobaptism turning into christening turning into dedication turning into whatever the next milder step is. out of the interplay and balance between keeping customs & thinking about them, and between practical and doctrinal expressions of love. the point is to comfort one another, but the point is also not to comfort each other in the truth.
i gave something not entirely unlike the theology behind it in my previous post, and you may hear it talked about from some people or even preacher / teachers a little differently. they may claim the act of water baptism itself saves, and suggest that passages which say things like 'believe and be saved, you and your whole household' ((Acts 16:31)) prove that infants should be baptized, because it says your whole household. there are a number of things wrong with such an assertion, though, and the theologians of these denominations admit as much and have other more esoteric explanations involving all the implied and assumed 'covenantal' things i alluded to in what i wrote a moment ago. all of which intellectually acquiesce that, yes, it is not effective, no, it doesn't have any real meaning for the child but yes, really signifies nothing more than a promise on the part of the parents and/or congregation that they intend to try to bring up the child in the faith.
now - you certainly won't hear it expressed this way, because of what it seems to me is the intent: to console the natural concern of the parents about whether the child will believe the gospel and be saved. it would be counterproductive to go into the theology and hold a service where you make it clear to everyone gathered to perform a ritual that it's ultimately not going to actually effect anything.
the argument, in my mind, becomes about the value of ritual itself, its benefit to the people involved versus how honest it is to act out something you don't actually believe, as though you do actually believe it. and i think that's how we get pedobaptism turning into christening turning into dedication turning into whatever the next milder step is. out of the interplay and balance between keeping customs & thinking about them, and between practical and doctrinal expressions of love. the point is to comfort one another, but the point is also not to comfort each other in the truth.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Where do they see it the bible? Circumcision and Mosaic law?
I was just thinking about this yesterday about baby dedications. It's a solid practice and I had forgotten about it somehow...I guess because I became anti-church of God/AG somehow because it felt watered down.
and yet, I can't deny that the Lord moves there...just maybe not at the pace that I feel I personally need. Grew up in it, experienced many things and I don't disagree with a lot of it, just that it feels very "humanistic" at times.
I was just thinking about this yesterday about baby dedications. It's a solid practice and I had forgotten about it somehow...I guess because I became anti-church of God/AG somehow because it felt watered down.
and yet, I can't deny that the Lord moves there...just maybe not at the pace that I feel I personally need. Grew up in it, experienced many things and I don't disagree with a lot of it, just that it feels very "humanistic" at times.
that's good advice, and i should listen
what i wrote, i wrote on the basis of attending a Presbyterian catechism, then listening to about 25 hours of all the preaching / teaching i could find on the subject, at about 50/50 for and against. i was summarizing what i understood people to say. i dove headlong into researching it for a while last year because i had never heard of it before, and in catechism they really didn't want to field many questions. turns out ((i had never been)) catechism isn't a place where you discuss things, it's a place where you practice memorizing a list of things.
that's been the an historic line of reasoning expressed by church leaders instructing that pedobaptism should stop, since at least ~ 300 AD. the protestant churches who practice it today do not have the same theological explanation and reasoning that the church in the first 1,000 years did. they explain it as hereditary inclusion in a covenant of some kind, but in the past it was practiced as though the act of water immersion literally produces salvation, irrespective of other things such as belief, confession and repentance.
