# Karl Barth on Infant Baptism



## Dieter Schneider (Sep 9, 2010)

May I invite some learned responses on the following quotation (click here)?

"The real reason for the persistent adherence to infant baptism is quite simply the fact that without it the church would suddenly be in a remarkably embarrassing position. Every individual would then have to decide whether he wanted to be a Christian. But how many Christians would there be in that case? The whole concept of a national church (or national religion) would be shaken. That must not happen; and so one proposes argument upon argument for infant baptism and yet cannot speak convincingly because fundamentally he has a bad conscience. The introduction of adult baptism in itself would of course not reform the church which needs reforming. The adherence to infant baptism is only one-a very important one-of many symptoms that the church is not alive and bold, that it is afraid to walk on the water like Peter to meet the Lord, that it therefore does not seek a sure foundation but only deceptive props.
The consequence of this adherence to infant baptism is the devaluation of baptism by so-called confirmation, in which baptism is supposed to be confirmed by faith, in which therefore the confession and desire which ought to precede baptism are supposed to be made up for later. Fifteen years later one is supposed to confirm his faith. This procedure is impossible. But it cannot be avoided so long as we hold to infant baptism, which is indeed incomplete without this subsequent confirmation.
Another consequence is necessarily the formation of a mass church, the Christian character of which is never examined at all, a church which therefore cannot realize the comfort that comes from having been baptized. Under these circumstances, one need not be surprised at the stream of indifference and secularism which flows through our church."

Learning Jesus Christ through the Heidelberg Catechism


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 9, 2010)

First thought is that this is very apparently speaking to condition the German state-church. Second thought is that he makes a lot of assertions but nowhere quotes Scripture to back them up.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 9, 2010)

Third thought is that this is Barth trying to comment on a Reformed Confession.


----------



## Grymir (Sep 9, 2010)

Yes, it does sound like Barth is speaking about the German State Church. And one has to place oneself in that context when reading it, as he isn't talking about the Church as we know it here. Notice he talks about the " Every individual would then have to decide whether he wanted to be a Christian." or "The whole concept of a national church (or national religion) would be shaken."

I clicked on the link and it was a blog with only one post, no blogger information, and it doesn't show where the quote came from (as in page #'s). It makes me think that Barth is still alive, as it seems soooo Barthian. Notice the tagline - "This blog is being developed - not sure where it will all end!"


----------



## Poimen (Sep 9, 2010)

Baptism is not dependent upon a national church or national religion anymore than circumcision was dependent upon the establishment of the nation of Israel or Israel's profession of God. The covenant character of baptism was/is established by our covenant keeping God. (Romans 3:1ff.)


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 10, 2010)

Poimen said:


> Baptism is not dependent upon a national church or national religion anymore than circumcision was dependent upon the establishment of the nation of Israel or Israel's profession of God. The covenant character of baptism was/is established by our covenant keeping God. (Romans 3:1ff.)


 
I think Barth's point is that a national church depends upon infant baptism. While an interesting point, this would still only work if there was no real church discipline, (as was/is the case in the German State Church.) The alternative is that church discipline be in effect, and that only communicant members in good standing can vote or hold office (in the civil sphere), and everyone else is disenfranchised. (Which is a great idea, but try telling that to the unchurched.)


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 10, 2010)

The blog was unhelpful because it doesn't say what Barth thought about baptism at all, he bashed both infant and adult baptism so does he really reject baptism altogether? He was a somewhat hyborbolic writer at times so I would take this quote(maybe?) with a grain of salt. David P. Scaer wrote a book on baptism for a Lutheran theology series of books and one of the chapters is on Barth and baptism. It is one of the many books I plan to get when I finish welding school and start getting paid, God willing, what they say most welders get paid.


----------



## CharlieJ (Sep 10, 2010)

Didn't Kierkegaard express almost an identical view of infant baptism and the state church? If I hadn't been told the quote was from Barth, I would have guess it to be from K.


----------



## Philip (Sep 10, 2010)

I think the quote is helpful in exposing some of the motivations associated with the defense of infant baptism at some points in church history. It isn't helpful for us because none of us (not counting the couple of CoS guys on this board) are involved with a state or national church. Most of us are Americans, so it hasn't been part of the landscape for two hundred years.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 10, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I think the quote is helpful in exposing some of the motivations associated with the defense of infant baptism at some points in church history. It isn't helpful for us because none of us (not counting the couple of CoS guys on this board) are involved with a state or national church. Most of us are Americans, so it hasn't been part of the landscape for two hundred years.


 
You know Philip on this point I have been curious with exactly what was Barth's problem with natural revealation, from the point of view of a national church and his dealings with Nazism (that no doubt affected his views). I think that he might have some intersting things to say, or not.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 10, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I think the quote is helpful in exposing some of the motivations associated with the defense of infant baptism at some points in church history. It isn't helpful for us because none of us (not counting the couple of CoS guys on this board) are involved with a state or national church. Most of us are Americans, so it hasn't been part of the landscape for two hundred years.


 
It's not quite been 200 years since disestablishment in some states, but I get your point.


----------



## Philip (Sep 10, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > I think the quote is helpful in exposing some of the motivations associated with the defense of infant baptism at some points in church history. It isn't helpful for us because none of us (not counting the couple of CoS guys on this board) are involved with a state or national church. Most of us are Americans, so it hasn't been part of the landscape for two hundred years.
> ...


 
I actually think that Barth's problems with natural theology and revelation are similar to Van Til's. The difference is (from my limited understanding) one of degree: Barth saw the church of his day as having compromised special revelation in favor of pragmatism and natural theology, giving rise to liberalism, much like Van Til did. What he sought to do was to provide a modern theological system from Scripture (obviously he failed and the reasons are complicated and rooted in where he was historically and geographically).

But that's for another thread.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 10, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > P. F. Pugh said:
> ...


 
We can agree to disagree then, I think the presupossitions (pardon the pun) between these two is too much to make them theological, or philosophical, friends. But you are correct that is for another thread.


----------

