# Methodist baptism



## Weston Stoler (Apr 9, 2012)

How do Methodists arrive at Infant Baptism? Are their differences between presbyterian and methodist baptism? If it is by covenant theology how can they not be calvinists?


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Apr 9, 2012)

From my limited understanding, I understand that the UMC believes, like us reformed folk, that baptism conveys a type of grace. The difference then would be that the Methodist believes that baptism conveys 'prevenient' grace (or grace that 'goes before'). They believe that when this type of grace is conveyed to the infant or child that it helps prepare or empower them to be able to "accept" Jesus as Savior later in life.


----------



## Edward (Apr 9, 2012)

"Why Baptize Babies?
From the earliest times, children and infants were baptized and included in the church. As scriptural authority for this ancient tradition, some scholars cite Jesus’ words, “Let the little children come to me…for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs” (Mark 10:14). However, a more consistent argument is that baptism, as a means of grace, signifies God’s initiative in the process of salvation. John Wesley preached “prevenient grace,” the grace that works in our lives before we are aware of it, bringing us to faith. The baptism of children and their inclusion in the church before they can respond with their own confirmation of faith is a vivid and compelling witness to prevenient grace."
Baptism: Overview - UMC.org


----------



## FenderPriest (Apr 9, 2012)

My experience having grown up and being baptized as an infant in the UMC, the simple answer is tradition. Scripture is appealed to, but Methodist doctrine doesn't include the Covenant Theology of the Reformed tradition, so the argument isn't as robust as say a Presbyterian's is.

I'm a Credobaptist now.


----------



## reformedminister (Apr 9, 2012)

I was confirmed, baptized, and became a minister in the UMC. There are only a few different perspectives regarding infant baptism. The Methodist view falls under the "Reformed" perspective. This was taught in my Seminary. Also, from my personal study on the subject I have found no difference. My own perspective and understanding, as I now find myself within the Reformed camp is no different than before. John Wesley himself was unclear regarding this subject because it seemed that his view varied slightly as witnessed from his writings.


----------



## J. Dean (Apr 9, 2012)

Well, as I understand it, it comes from John Wesley, as he was an Anglican, and the Anglicans baptized infants.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Apr 9, 2012)

Many Methodists used to attend Erskine. This question was asked in one of Tim's classes, and they pretty much didn't know, other than that they always had baptized babies.


----------



## Martin (Apr 9, 2012)

From UMC members, I have heard every reason from "answering for the child until they can answer for themselves" to "we don't want the baby to go to hell if it dies".


----------



## JML (Apr 9, 2012)

My entire family is UMC. I have asked them before about the purpose of baptism. Their response was that the baptism was a dedication of the child to the church and the parents and church promising to raise them in the Lord's teaching. However, having grown up Methodist, baptized children are not considered even non-communicant members if I recall correctly. They must go through confirmation classes at a later age. I went through these classes at around 11. It was at this point that I was a member of the church. However, I was not exactly cognizant of much theology back then so I'm not quite sure what they consider a baptized child before confirmation.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 9, 2012)

I have seen at least one article from a United Methodist minister that basically presented an argument that would be recognizable to Reformed people. 

However, it should be noted that Methodists as well as the Anglicans (their origin) will often put more weight on tradition, as noted in at least one of the quotes posted above. Remember that they do not affirm the RPW so they don't have to teach that a practice is taught in Scripture in order to do it. You see the same with the office of Bishop, (i.e. a different office from elder) which they will admit is not found in the pages of the NT. But they argue for its antiquity as well as its utility. My recollection is that Wesley thought infant baptism was an important rite with regard to prevenient grace, but I'm no Wesley scholar by any stretch. Tradition is also one of the four parts of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

The UMC liturgy states that the child is "born again" at the time of its baptism, similar to what the Anglican liturgy has. If not "born again" it's a similar statement that at least strongly suggests that the rite confers the new birth in a way that most confessional Reformed people would tend to abhor.

I grew up UMC as well. In those circles, there is a lot of sentimentality mixed in, as Eric notes. You also have the unthinking traditionalism that you find in all denominations, especially those who have had families going to the same congregation for generations and cannot tell you much about why they're a Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic or whatever and why they differ from other professing Christian groups.

---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------




John Lanier said:


> My entire family is UMC. I have asked them before about the purpose of baptism. Their response was that the baptism was a dedication of the child to the church and the parents and church promising to raise them in the Lord's teaching. However, having grown up Methodist, baptized children are not considered even non-communicant members if I recall correctly. They must go through confirmation classes at a later age. I went through these classes at around 11. It was at this point that I was a member of the church. However, I was not exactly cognizant of much theology back then so I'm not quite sure what they consider a baptized child before confirmation.



My guess is that at least some UMC churches will let any child big enough to walk forward to the altar rail partake in communion. I am pretty sure that I took the Lord's Supper prior to being baptized. We didn't start going to church until I was about 7 and for whatever reason my parents waited to have me baptized at my confirmation at the age of 12. However my memory may fail me here. Regardless, in larger congregations I don't see how that kind of thing could be policed unless it is made clear. And some kids are older than they look and vice versa. I don't know what is in their book of discipline. 

Given the current state of the UMC, I'd be surprised to see any minister disciplined for any theological reason. Sexual ethics and related issues on the part of ordained ministers may be different at least theoretically if not practically.


----------



## reformedminister (Apr 9, 2012)

In my experience with United Methodist Churches, I have noticed a great diversity of beliefs. Each congregation is different. I know from my personal study of John Wesley's writings that his later work seemed to reflect a more Anglo- Catholic leaning towards the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. However, I have not seen this personally in the UMC churches that I have served. As a whole, the churches are not grounded in the doctrine that they profess, which explains the confusion of what they really belief concerning the matter.


----------

