Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Anglicans and Baptism

Thread: Purgatory: Anglicans and Baptism Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000881

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

In a thread about church schools, leo said something that struck me as very odd:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One of our previous clergy did not have his kids baptised - he , and more likely the mother, wanted them to 'wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves.'

They didn't get into a church school.

Mind you, i don't think they approved of church schools either.

I can see that there are Anglican clerics who might not approve of church schools (although I vehemently disagree), but how is that attitude toward Baptism consistent with being a clerk in holy orders in the Church of England as by law established? I was raised to believe that — in the Anglican, as in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches — having ones children baptized was considered one of the basic duties of a Christian, yet this is not the first time I've heard an Anglican cleric speak so lightly of it.

Recently, before Evensong in a certain large Collegiate church, I overheard the minister giving (rather too loudly in my opinion) advice to a mother that 'there's really no point in baptizing the child now, why don't we wait a few years and have her baptized and confirmed at the same time'!

I've also had a seminarian friend tell me that some of his fellow theological students (for I do not think they would call themselves 'seminarians') were shocked — shocked! — to discover that the Anglican church teaches baptismal regeneration and always has (as indicated in the rite from the 1662 BCP).

No observant churchgoer can be blind to the fact the Eucharistic life of the Church of England is in a very bad state, but am I alone in thinking that attitudes toward Baptism are very 'low' and perhaps at their lowest point since the Restoration? If this is indeed the case, is there much that can be done about it?

[ 15. June 2016, 18:52: Message edited by: Belisarius ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

We live in an age of sloppy theology, and while it is bad enough to hear of Anglican lay people spouting Anabaptist ideas, it is shocking to hear them from Anglican clergy!

I was horrified to hear the tale of a friend of a friend who was rebaptized to mark the usual born-again experience, and then in the same ceremony baptized her fiancee herself... at a United Methodist church. I bet that pastor's superintendent didn't hear about that one!

[ 07. July 2012, 13:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

While my first line of approach has always been to speak (civilly) with the cleric involved, suggesting that we chat about this over coffee-- far better than at the back of the church after a service where there are many distractions -- generally the response is a dismissive smirk for, as a layperson, one cannot know as much or perceive as spiritually as the ordained. Even pointing out particular passages in the prayerbook or other documents tends to get a "Nobody believes that any more" response.

While the civil (and non-threatening!) approach, requesting explanation and a fuller picture, should always be the default, I am starting to think that a concise letter to the diocesan bishop is really best. It is also interesting to see to what extent eccentric views are reflected on parish websites. It is not so much that they are irregular, or at odds with official formularies, or even heretical, but that they are best (and most generously) described as incoherent. I really don't know what there is to be done about it.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I can't quite see the problem myself. Just think about the range of Eucharistic theologies present within the Church of England. Why cannot a similar range of baptismal theologies also be present? It is not, after all, as if we are talking about a fringe practice here, as far as Christians more generally are concerned.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Setting the question of baptismal theologies aside,

My understanding is that pastorally, while the Anglican Church recognizes and celebrates infant baptism, we recognize that it is the prerogative of the parents as to when a child gets baptized. We don't subscribe to baptism as "fire insurance" in which an unbaptized person has no hope of salvation if he or she dies.

Some parents wait a year or two before they get their child baptized. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

As I provoked the OP - the priest in question is married so had to take his wife's views. It was she who wanted to postpone. She's an evangelical, he isn't. I would ope that married couples come to a common mind.

(As one who values my baptism, having remembered it since i was aged 13, i have mixed feelings about infant baptism.

I am at a loss as to what the OP means by 'the Eucharistic life of the Church of England is in a very bad state' - communicant numbers are increasing here - or does the OP mean we don't prepare as much as we used to? (I agree)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm not an Anglican, although in my faith tradition babies are baptised.

We all know that the choice to baptise a baby may be no guarantee even of a furtive desire to 'explore' Christianity, let alone a serious desire to attempt to keep the promises they make during the ceremony. Some clergy may feel increasingly uneasy about encouraging parents to make baptismal promises to God that are likely to be forgotten. It may seem inauthentic, a form of play-acting. Christian parents who observe this kind of play-acting among non-religious baptismal parties may feel nervous about getting involved in that kind of circus themselves.

For practising Christians, whose main concern is for their children to come to faith, a catch-all baby-welcoming ceremony that means different things to different people isn't perhaps very helpful. Also, since 'coming to faith' is such a blurred concept in our (post-)Christian society, adult baptism is helpful in providing a very definate and recognisable point at which you tell the church and the world that you've made your decision. Parents who baptise their babies are preventing their children from having that experience later in life. Confirmation, so I understand, has often not meant making a decision for Christ, but has often been the point at which young people leave the church! (In any case, confirmations have declined....) Believer's baptism seems to more meaningful as an indicator of spiritual commitment.

Yes, I understand that infant baptism is about emphasising what God does for us, not what we do for God. But we can believe and remember all that without having our babies baptised. So why is it essential? There seems to be a loss of clarity about why it's so important.

I'm not a theologian, but I just feel that an authentic theology of infant baptism is missing. I don't mean the stuff in theology textbooks - I mean a theology and a liturgy that respond to the real world and try to get to grips with the ways in which ordinary folk understand infant baptism. The textbook stuff needs to deal with those realities, and offer a clear response. (We should be so lucky!)

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

One thing I never understood about anabaptist theology is this: if you have to intellectually assent to Christianity before you can be baptized, what about the mentally disabled? Wouldn't this mean they're unable to be saved?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
One thing I never understood about anabaptist theology is this: if you have to intellectually assent to Christianity before you can be baptized, what about the mentally disabled? Wouldn't this mean they're unable to be saved?

That is imposing a Catholic soteriology on an Anabaptist framework. Anabaptists divorce baptism completely from salvation. They would reject any notion of baptismal regeneration.

As such, baptism would be an act of obedience by people to demonstrate their faith in God.

In reference to your secondary question, I would surmise that Anabaptists would leave the spiritual state of the disabled to God, as with other people. Whether the disabled can be baptised or not is irrelevant as to the question of salvation.

[ 07. July 2012, 19:05: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
One thing I never understood about anabaptist theology is this: if you have to intellectually assent to Christianity before you can be baptized, what about the mentally disabled? Wouldn't this mean they're unable to be saved?

You'd also have to bring back Limbo with a vengence for the kiddies if that was true.*

Baptism becomes something you do because (and only to do if) you're saved rather than vice versa. (there are many weaknesses with this but also with the other position)

*Also of course just because someone couldn't give a 27 point evaluation of (whatever) doesn't mean they can't know enough to commit.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
In a thread about church schools, leo said something that struck me as very odd:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One of our previous clergy did not have his kids baptised - he , and more likely the mother, wanted them to 'wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves.'

They didn't get into a church school.

Mind you, i don't think they approved of church schools either.
I can see that there are Anglican clerics who might not approve of church schools (although I vehemently disagree), but how is that attitude toward Baptism consistent with being a clerk in holy orders in the Church of England as by law established? I was raised to believe that — in the Anglican, as in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches — having ones children baptized was considered one of the basic duties of a Christian, yet this is not the first time I've heard an Anglican cleric speak so lightly of it.

Recently, before Evensong in a certain large Collegiate church, I overheard the minister giving (rather too loudly in my opinion) advice to a mother that 'there's really no point in baptizing the child now, why don't we wait a few years and have her baptized and confirmed at the same time'!

I've also had a seminarian friend tell me that some of his fellow theological students (for I do not think they would call themselves 'seminarians') were shocked — shocked! — to discover that the Anglican church teaches baptismal regeneration and always has (as indicated in the rite from the 1662 BCP).

No observant churchgoer can be blind to the fact the Eucharistic life of the Church of England is in a very bad state, but am I alone in thinking that attitudes toward Baptism are very 'low' and perhaps at their lowest point since the Restoration? If this is indeed the case, is there much that can be done about it?

I do not think that Anglican theology of Baptism is at its lowest point since the Restoration, though it is probably at its lowest point since the Tractinarian movement. In the 18th century both the Evangelicals and the Lauditarians did not believe in baptismal regeneration, and the pre-tractinarian high churchmen were at a very low ebb in terms of numbers and influence.

Furthermore, given the Gorham Judgement, it seems that a strict belie if in baptismal regeneration is not absolutely necessary in Anglicanism.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Just to pick up on Unreformed's comment, in my first parish, I had a young man who was mentally disabled. He was baptized but was never allowed to commune because previous pastors had said he would not understand the Eucharist.

My take on the situation was to ask the question: Do anyone of us fully understand the Eucharist? No, I find the reality of the Eucharist is not in our understanding, but in Jesus' words combined with the elements.

I did sit down with him and told him that the bread was Jesus' body because Jesus said it was so; likewise the wine was Jesus' blood because Jesus said so. He seemed to understand that.

The Sunday I first communed him, as he took the bread, he showed it to his parents and said: "This is Jesus' body." As he received the cup from me, he looked at me at said: "This is Jesus's blood."

Seems to me he had a better understanding than most theologians.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

That's how we handle it.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

It seems to me that whether we believe that our relationship with God is by God's initiative or our own -- whether God saves us or whether we believe that we save ourselves via "making a decision for Christ" -- is a crucial theological question. And I'd raise an eyebrow at any clergyperson in the broad catholic tradition who would treat the question with a "Whatever" attitude.

On the other hand...here in the States "believer's baptism" is such an entrenched part of the dominant Protestant culture, and something that also dovetails into the secular emphasis on individualism and consumerism, that clergypeople in catholic churches have a constant uphill battle with new members who struggle with the idea that God chooses us and not the other way around. I think some clergypeople may just give up. I know in our church we have a family who regularly floats between our congregation and a Nazarene one a few miles away, and this is a real conceptual problem for them.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

I'm a Baptist and am dedicating two children tomorrow.

This is instead of Baptism.

Believers Baptism is as mentioned the usual practice within our ecclesiology.

Faith is essential for Baptism but Baptism is not essential for faith.

Tomorrow I am dedicating two children instead of baptising them. This is is simply a way of blessing a child and welcoming him/her into the church family.

Within the dedication I speak about the hope the child will one day make that choice of following Christ themselves.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

As a matter of terminology, the opposite of paedo-baptism is credo-baptism; the designation 'Anabaptist' is a subset of credo-baptists, reflecting the continental expression of credo-baptism, specifically associated with the Mennonites, of whom the Amish are also component. By contrast the other Baptist tradition that is the source of the mainstream Baptists of the USA comes from a Englishman, John Smyth, in Amsterdam in 1609 - see Wikipedia.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I am at a loss as to what the OP means by 'the Eucharistic life of the Church of England is in a very bad state' - communicant numbers are increasing here - or does the OP mean we don't prepare as much as we used to? (I agree)

Lack of preparation is one problem, but what I really had in mind is the apparent rolling back of the Parish Communion movement, so that many MotR parishes seem to think it the 'done thing' to have a non-Eucharistic 'all age service' or the like as their primary service once a month or more. That would be fine, if not exactly to my taste, if we assumed that everyone in the congregation had assisted at mass earlier in the day, but I think we all know that isn't happening and isn't likely to happen any time soon.

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:

Faith is essential for Baptism but Baptism is not essential for faith.

I understand that this is what Baptists believe, but it is most emphatically not the teaching of the Church of England, nor that of our separated brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches (or our not-quite so separated brothers and sisters in the Continental Old Catholic churches for that matter). For us, there is no Church — and, thus, no Christianity as we know it — without Baptism.

As I understand it (and I do not pretend to be theologically literate) Baptism is the one absolutely essential sacrament. Were all priests and bishops suddenly to die the Church militant could struggle on without the Holy Sacrifice and without the sacraments of confirmation, holy unction, ordination, or the reconciliation of a penitent (holy matrimony would presumably continue to exist, albeit in an altered form). The Church would obviously be greatly impoverished in such circumstances, but it could limp on until 'the Judge his seat attaineth'. Without Baptism — a sacrament so vital that Church teaches that it should be performed by a layperson in grave emergency rather than left undone — the Church would cease to exist altogether.

I am a Christian not because of what I believe or do not believe and not because I go to mass on holy days of obligation, for it is perfectly possible for a Christian to lapse into heresy or apostasy (and I have myself lapsed from time to time), but because I was taken as an infant to a priest who baptized me in the name of the Triune God and pronounced that I was thereby 'received into Christ's holy Church, and [...] made a lively member of the same'.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Without Baptism — a sacrament so vital that Church teaches that it should be performed by a layperson in grave emergency rather than left undone — the Church would cease to exist altogether.

That's cute theology, but collapses once the complexities of experience are considered: the biblical demonstration of this is the thief on the cross, whilst the persecution scenario of the person who comes to a point of commitment but cannot be baptised because there is no physical contact is also significant (suppose you've only met the person over the internet and they are in a country where there is no indigenous church). The cop out solution in Catholic circles as I understand it is a hand waving argument about 'baptism of intention' and even a 'baptism of blood' for those who are martyred before they can be baptised, but this undermines the whole of your position about baptism as absolutely necessary to the church...

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

Baptism of blood and of intent are defined as being essentially forms of baptism and have been since the very early Church (they come up in Ambrose, did he originate them?). Their existence surely underlines, rather than diminishes, the importance of baptism.

This reminds me of yet another bizarre Anglican baptism story I heard: namely a lecturer at an English theological college who told his students that they should consider baptizing stillborn infants out of pastoral concern for the parents. Baptizing the dead, as if we were Mormons! I fail utterly to see how this is more pastoral than the, far more orthodox, option of consoling the parents that children who die in infancy are without sin and thus in no need of regeneration, and furthermore, need not be initiated into the Church Militant as their place is already with the Church Triumphant.

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

Not saying this is an example of a coherent theological framework, but this is where we are as a family.

I'm an adult convert, baptised and confirmed into the CofE in my mid twenties. Husband has no faith. We agreed not to have our two boys baptised, because other half wasn't willing to make the necessary parental promises and I arranged a service of thanksgiving for each one when they were a few months old.

Our younger son is now 10 and is autistic with severe learning difficulties. It's pretty clear to everyone who knows him that he is unlikely ever to have the mental capacity to make that kind of faith decision himself (I don't mean he is incapable of knowing God btw).

I've just started to broach the idea of having him baptised, as if it were an infant baptism. Husband is willing (though unlikely to participate). Vicar is also willing. I need to think and pray about it some more, but it does feel like the right thing to do at this stage.

I don't see baptism as "salvation insurance", but I'm not really anabaptist either. If things had been different, I'm sure I would have had my son dunked as a baby.

[ps, ken if you are reading this, you up for being godfather?]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Baptism of blood and of intent are defined as being essentially forms of baptism and have been since the very early Church (they come up in Ambrose, did he originate them?). Their existence surely underlines, rather than diminishes, the importance of baptism.

Humbug; they're not REAL baptisms. Baptism is an act of the church using water. A 'baptism of blood' involves neither the church, nor, probably, water. It's just nuts to argue that it's a baptism on any sane definition of the term.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I'm with ES on this. They are only called baptisms because the church decreed that baptism is essential for salvation, and yet we have these people who weren't dunked/dipped/washed/etc but would appear to be saints...well they must have been "baptised" by blood/fire/intent then.

Genuine question - was Mary the mother of Jesus baptised?

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Baptism is an act of the church using water.

Certainly water is the normative outward and visible sign of the sacrament of Baptism, but the Church has taught from very early times that there are certain definite exceptions to this.

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

Genuine question - was Mary the mother of Jesus baptised?

As I understand it, from the perspective of the Western Church, the Immaculate Conception covers this one, in as much as Mary, being sinless, did not need regeneration (Eastern Christianity has a different take, about which others here are far more qualified than I am to discuss). Even if this weren't the case (or if you have hangups about the Immaculate Conception), I think the whole 'vessel of salvation' thing might mean she was considered to be sufficiently sanctified.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I can't quite see the problem myself. Just think about the range of Eucharistic theologies present within the Church of England. Why cannot a similar range of baptismal theologies also be present?

First, are the Eucharistic theologies contradictory? If not, what’s the problem? If they are, of course they cannot all coherently coexist within the same Church. Coherence is important. Truth, it would seem, is in fact ideal coherence. (Also see here.)

Second, if a person is ordained in a given denomination, we should be confident that the ordinand actually believes what that particular denomination holds to be true.* And the Anglican churches has always taught baptismal regeneration.

* I’m not sure about the liturgy of ordination in anglican churches, but in the Church of Norway (lutheran), the ordinand is swearing to uphold and teach the teachings contained in the Scriptures and (some of) the creeds in the Book of Concord: The Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism. I doubt that there aren’t any ‘confessional bounds’ on an Anglican ordinand.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
I’m not sure about the liturgy of ordination in anglican churches, but in the Church of Norway (lutheran), the ordinand is swearing to uphold and teach the teachings contained in the Scriptures and (some of) the creeds in the Book of Concord: The Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism. I doubt that there aren’t any ‘confessional bounds’ on an Anglican ordinand.

I know in the Church of England the ordained must agree that the doctrine in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are "agreeable to the Word of God". In TEC, they have a slightly revised version that the clergy are not required to assent to, and they're relegated to an appendix as of the 1979 BCP. I wouldn't be shocked if TEC soon dumps them altogether in the next few year. I don't know about the other churches in the Anglican Communion.

Posted by PriestWifeMum (# 17200) on :

Our church is very confused. I minister there but don't agree with the unwritten baptism policy, which is pretty tricky.

The vicar doesn't like baptising children from non-church families, in fact he doesn't like baptising young children but knows that he is required to do it. So he prefers to steer parents towards thanksgiving services (which he calls dedication christenings) and much prefers people to get baptised after they have made some kind of choice to believe in Christianity.

My own position is that it is God who saves us. ~If parents want to have their children baptised, then I trust in their promises and in God's saving Grace. Some of those parents don't take their promises seriously and the months and years go on - but that is their choice and they will have to face God about that. I'm not called to judge who is worthy to be baptised and who isn't. In fact, the baptism of an infant points more to God and God's action than adult baptism, often with its emphasis on a personal response, does.

I come to this position from my own story of being aware of God's presence in my life from at least toddlerhood, but not being allowed to be baptised until my late teens. Despite being a priest my own children were not baptised straight away both because of pressures in my own family and from pressures from the vicar.

But last year I managed to convince my husband that we should let them be baptised (whilst still small) and it was wonderful. But I did not have the support of the other clergy in my church (they tried to put obstacles in our path) and it made me feel angry and sick that they have basically succumbed to a Baptist theology but still call themselves Anglicans. Oh and we rebaptise too, officially we call it reaffirmation of baptismal vows by full immersion, but it is rebaptism and it is billed that way. I do not agree with it, but officially it fits within the rules, so what can be done?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I am at a loss as to what the OP means by 'the Eucharistic life of the Church of England is in a very bad state' - communicant numbers are increasing here - or does the OP mean we don't prepare as much as we used to? (I agree)
Lack of preparation is one problem, but what I really had in mind is the apparent rolling back of the Parish Communion movement, so that many MotR parishes seem to think it the 'done thing' to have a non-Eucharistic 'all age service' or the like as their primary service once a month or more. That would be fine, if not exactly to my taste, if we assumed that everyone in the congregation had assisted at mass earlier in the day, but I think we all know that isn't happening and isn't likely to happen any time soon.

I completely agree with you here.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

priestwifemum

The answer is for the CofE to split off into two or more different denominations, where everyone will be able to baptise as much or as little as they like!

This will happen once the CofE is disestablished, and it no longer bears the burden of trying to include people of very different theological positions.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
I’m not sure about the liturgy of ordination in anglican churches, but in the Church of Norway (lutheran), the ordinand is swearing to uphold and teach the teachings contained in the Scriptures and (some of) the creeds in the Book of Concord: The Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism. I doubt that there aren’t any ‘confessional bounds’ on an Anglican ordinand.
I know in the Church of England the ordained must agree that the doctrine in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are "agreeable to the Word of God". In TEC, they have a slightly revised version that the clergy are not required to assent to, and they're relegated to an appendix as of the 1979 BCP. I wouldn't be shocked if TEC soon dumps them altogether in the next few year. I don't know about the other churches in the Anglican Communion.

There is no movement afoot to "dump" the 39 Articles altogether. They are in the Historical Documents section of the BCP. The problem is that the 39 Articles, in essence, are a reactionary document that state more what we don't believe than what we do, and in over-the-top language that makes it difficult to enter into ecumenical discussions - particularly with Catholics. They also often represent a hyper-Protestant position, but many Anglicans have views of the nature of the church and sacraments that are at odds with it. That said, it remains an important historical document.

Far from the TEC dumping confessional statements, when we entered into full communion with the ELCA we officially recognized "the essentials of the one catholic and apostolic faith as it is witnessed in the unaltered Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism" as well as making several other confessional statements in the Called to Common Mission. The baptism statement reads:

quote:
We believe that baptism with water in the name of the Triune God unites the one baptized with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, initiates into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and confers the gracious gift of new life.

[ 08. July 2012, 14:00: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Priestwifemum posts:

quote:
Oh and we rebaptise too, officially we call it reaffirmation of baptismal vows by full immersion, but it is rebaptism and it is billed that way. I do not agree with it, but officially it fits within the rules, so what can be done?

I may be naive and inexperienced, but I have never before heard of this, and I would doubt that it officially fits within the rules. As far as what is to be done, I think a letter to the archdeacon or diocesan bishop to inform them of this and to ask for their opinion would be in order.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Priestwifemum posts:
quote:
Oh and we rebaptise too, officially we call it reaffirmation of baptismal vows by full immersion, but it is rebaptism and it is billed that way. I do not agree with it, but officially it fits within the rules, so what can be done?
I may be naive and inexperienced, but I have never before heard of this, and I would doubt that it officially fits within the rules. As far as what is to be done, I think a letter to the archdeacon or diocesan bishop to inform them of this and to ask for their opinion would be in order.

There's a recent thread in Ecclesiantics that touches on this. Apparently it's acceptable so long as the re-affirmation liturgy is used. I don't know how it can be billed as a 'baptism' if the official liturgy calls it a 're-affirmation', though. Maybe it's the accompanying sermon that creates the confusion.

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=007496

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I had followed the other thread, but feel that this is a case of a lack of honesty-- it's really a baptism but it isn't. Of course, renewal of baptismal vows is one thing, is known at Holy Saturday services and at baptisms where the congregation re-affirms its own baptismal promises, but the ritual act of total immersion doesn't feature there. I would still hold that a letter to the bishop would be in order and, if that makes the bishop uncomfortable, I would not lose much sleep over it. That there are likely other cases of lack of discipline or theological and liturgical integrity is quite possible, and would be politically relevant to the bishop, but I'm not sure that this takes away from my point.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I make no comment on the following story which I heard from the former Bishop of Sheffield.

A 16-year old mother with child in arms summons up her courage to knock on the door of the imposing and off-putting vicarage. The vicar opens the door, beams when he sees the visitors and invites them in. 'What can I do for you?' The girl timidly stutters, 'I'd like him done.' 'Wonderful,' the priest says. 'what makes you come here to ask that?' 'Me mum says if I don't get him done we're never going to win at bingo.' 'Right - we can't have that! Let's see when we can arrange the christening then.' So the young woman went off basking in the warmth of her welcome and from then on always thinking of the church, and God, as being on her side and somewhere to turn in times of need.

The bishop said it's all about our 'yes' to God. Sometimes that is a big 'yes', like Mary's 'yes'. But often it starts off very small, like the young girl's, but with encouragement and nurture it can grow.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

I don't see a problem with re-affirming vows by immersion other than it being a bit naff (full confession: I did that along with about 100 other confirmation candidates when I was a young evangelical, which admittedly was a very long time ago). Although, conversely, there is no real need for such a service either, as baptism is indelible and need not be 'topped up'. At best, a reaffirmation is just a more explicit version of what we do every time we enter a church (or at least a 'sound' church) and cross ourselves with holy water.

The real question is one of intent. As any Catholic thinker will tell you, the intent to baptize is required for a valid baptism. If there is no intent to 're-baptize', then nothing amiss has taken place; if, however, there is such an intent, then officiating minister is promoting a doctrine that is gravely heretical. Certainly, anything to contains the phrase 'I baptize thee' or anything that even suggests equivalency to that formula, should be avoided.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Originally posted by Angloid:

In reference to your story about the 16 year old mother, the problem is perhaps that the CofE leaves these things to individual judgement. One vicar might have some reasonable arguments for baptising the baby, while another might have other arguments for not doing so. Your story has a happy ending, but but noone knows what the future holds, and a vicar might have grounds to fear that such a baptism might have a negative rather than a positive outcome.

The story contains various 'what ifs'. Would the 16 year old have been bitter against the church forever if she'd gently been offered to participate in a service of blessing rather than a baptism? Are you admitting that a good vicar would have let this young woman go on supposing that success at the bingo was guaranteed, which is not what the CofE teaches? What if she'd never won at the bingo again - would that have created resentment against the church?

It seems that the CofE needs some sort of ceremony that brings non-churchgoers into the vague outer orbit of the church, and baptism is the default ceremony for that purpose. But it clearly wasn't designed for that, because why would it include all those strange promises that are often irrelevant to the lives of ordinary, non-religious people?

Perhaps I'm looking at it too literally. Still, if it's all about what God does for us, it makes little sense to include promises about what we're going to do for God. Perhaps the liturgy just needs to be tweaked so that people don't have to promise anything. That might make the ceremony seem a bit more authentic, and more suited to general, catch-all use.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

I wasn't aware that baptism was any less salvific for infants with confused mothers, but then one learns something every day. A lot of this thread seems to be filled with what looks frankly like intellectual snobbery (and probably also social snobbery) on the part of Evangelicals, who seem to regard baptism as something intended for 'People Like Us' — good little Evangelicals with a well articulated understanding of Christian doctrine — rather than a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord and efficacious, ex opere operato, for the salvation of the human race. I'm reminded of the wise words of Fr Faber on the subject of magnifying God's strictness.

As we are reminded in that passage of S. Mark's Gospel appointed by the Prayer Book to be read at the Publick Baptism of Infants, Our Lord instructed his disciples 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not'. Nowhere is it recorded that he turned away those children whose parents he regarded as insufficiently religious.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think the problem is not so much that mothers are confused, but that the rest of us are! There'd be less confusion if the promises were removed from the liturgy. That's all. The promises give the impression that something is to be expected from the parents, whereas you and others insist that this is not the case. Confusion naturally ensues.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:

[ps, ken if you are reading this, you up for being godfather?]

Yes, I guess!

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

It seems that the CofE needs some sort of ceremony that brings non-churchgoers into the vague outer orbit of the church, and baptism is the default ceremony for that purpose. But it clearly wasn't designed for that, because why would it include all those strange promises that are often irrelevant to the lives of ordinary, non-religious people?

We have such a ceremony, a dedication of children that is not baptism and need not involve the same promises. The people who wrote the liturgy seemed to have intended it to be mainly used by the "walk ins". In fact, in my very limited experience of it, it seems almost entirely to be used by churchgoing believers who have reasons (family reasons or doctrinal ones) for not asking for infant baptism for their children. The non-churchgoing parents seem to want "the real thing".

As someone else said there seems to be a bit of confusion about the word "Anabaptist" here. I've not, as far as I remember, met any Anglican clergy who were anabaptist in the sense that they thought that someone baptised as a child was not really baptised and ought to be done again if they became a believer later. (Though I have met Anglican lay people who think that)

There are, I think, at least some evangelical Anglican clergy who think that infant baptism is valid undesirable and that its better to wait and allow the child to choose later. And there are certainly some who think that infant baptism ought mainly to be a sign of membership of the church for those whose parents are in fact consciously members of the church - a sort of Christian covenant symbolism - and so a dedication service would be more appropriate if parents who are either not believers at all or not members of a church want to "get their children done".

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

From a position of genuine ignorance:

(S)pike couchant said:

quote:
a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord

I'm aware that he was baptised, but where did he institute it?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Perhaps I'm looking at it too literally.

Yup.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
From a position of genuine ignorance:

(S)pike couchant said:
quote:
a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord
I'm aware that he was baptised, but where did he institute it?

If you take Matthew 28.19 as the actual words of our Lord (which IMHO is extremely unlikely), well, then, there.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I wasn't aware that baptism was any less salvific for infants with confused mothers, but then one learns something every day. A lot of this thread seems to be filled with what looks frankly like intellectual snobbery (and probably also social snobbery) on the part of Evangelicals, who seem to regard baptism as something intended for 'People Like Us' — good little Evangelicals with a well articulated understanding of Christian doctrine — rather than a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord and efficacious, ex opere operato, for the salvation of the human race.

Christ did not institute baptism for the salvation of the human race. He reserved that exclusively to himself: crucified, risen, ascended and glorified. Salvation is found in Christ alone. That's not snobbery, it's the gospel.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I make no comment on the following story which I heard from the former Bishop of Sheffield.

A 16-year old mother with child in arms summons up her courage to knock on the door of the imposing and off-putting vicarage. The vicar opens the door, beams when he sees the visitors and invites them in. 'What can I do for you?' The girl timidly stutters, 'I'd like him done.' 'Wonderful,' the priest says. 'what makes you come here to ask that?' 'Me mum says if I don't get him done we're never going to win at bingo.' 'Right - we can't have that! Let's see when we can arrange the christening then.'

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The promises give the impression that something is to be expected from the parents, whereas you and others insist that this is not the case. Confusion naturally ensues.

Parents and godparents do, of course, have certain duties with respect to raising their children in the faith. From an Anglican perspective, these are: 'to see that [the] Infant be taught, so soon as he shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise, and profession, he hath here made by [them] ... [to] call upon him to hear Sermons ... [and] chiefly [to] hat he may learn the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in the vulgar tongue, and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his soul's health'.

My point, simply, is that the Church should not cease to do the duty entrusted to her simply because she fears that others will not do theirs.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
As we are reminded in that passage of S. Mark's Gospel appointed by the Prayer Book to be read at the Publick Baptism of Infants, Our Lord instructed his disciples 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not'. Nowhere is it recorded that he turned away those children whose parents he regarded as insufficiently religious.

Yeah, it comes just before the passage where Jesus tells the parable of the fig tree to prove the existence of unicorns.

[ 08. July 2012, 19:21: Message edited by: Daron ]

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
[QUOTE]O Salvation is found in Christ alone. That's not snobbery, it's the gospel.

Quite so, Christ became incarnate 'for us men and for our salvation', and to that end he did 'did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue' the holy sacraments 'as a means whereby we receive [his grace]'. Of these sacraments, only two are held to be 'necessary for salvation' — namely Baptism and the Eucharist.

I was tempted to point out that the Mass is the continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary, but I think I prefer to refute you with some of the very few undisputed doctrines of the confession in which you are allegedly ordained as a clerk in holy orders. That way, I can conclude on this note:

That's nitpicking, it's Christianity.

[ 08. July 2012, 19:32: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
[QUOTE]O Salvation is found in Christ alone. That's not snobbery, it's the gospel.
Quite so, Christ became incarnate 'for us men and for our salvation', and to that end he did 'did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue' the holy sacraments 'as a means whereby we receive [his grace]'. Of these sacraments, only two are held to be 'necessary for salvation' — namely Baptism and the Eucharist.

Is that the bible, the eucharistic liturgy or the 39 Articles that you're grossly misquoting?

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
[QUOTE]O Salvation is found in Christ alone. That's not snobbery, it's the gospel.
Quite so, Christ became incarnate 'for us men and for our salvation', and to that end he did 'did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue' the holy sacraments 'as a means whereby we receive [his grace]'. Of these sacraments, only two are held to be 'necessary for salvation' — namely Baptism and the Eucharist.
Is that the bible, the eucharistic liturgy or the 39 Articles that you're grossly misquoting?

The Nicene Creed, the 1662 Communion Office and the 1662 Catechism. None of them are misquoted, and all them should surely be familiar to a minister of the Established Church.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
[QUOTE]O Salvation is found in Christ alone. That's not snobbery, it's the gospel.
Quite so, Christ became incarnate 'for us men and for our salvation', and to that end he did 'did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue' the holy sacraments 'as a means whereby we receive [his grace]'. Of these sacraments, only two are held to be 'necessary for salvation' — namely Baptism and the Eucharist.
Is that the bible, the eucharistic liturgy or the 39 Articles that you're grossly misquoting?
The Nicene Creed, the 1662 Communion Office and the 1662 Catechism. None of them are misquoted, and all them should surely be familiar to a minister of the Established Church.

Have you ever sent a letter to someone by cutting up newspapers?

[ 08. July 2012, 19:52: Message edited by: Daron ]

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

For my clarification ( as a lowly Baptist Minister)as it seems some on this thread are suggesting this but it maybe I am misreading.

Do Anglicans really believe a person can not receive salvation unless s/he is baptised? Is this the primary reason for Infant Baptism?

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
For my clarification ( as a lowly Baptist Minister)as it seems some on this thread are suggesting this but it maybe I am misreading.

Do Anglicans really believe a person can not receive salvation unless s/he is baptised?

I can't answer for all Anglicans, but my own view is that, whilst 'the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude'*, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our theology, and there may well be other means of salvation known to God but not revealed to us.

*Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.

quote:
Is this the primary reason for Infant Baptism?

Yes.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Can someone explain to me why it tends to be those who believe in the Reformation principle of faith, rather than works, are so insistent that baptism depends on the work of 'firm belief' rather than the faith (often like a grain of mustard seed) that God will do what God promises?

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Do Anglicans really believe a person can not receive salvation unless s/he is baptised? Is this the primary reason for Infant Baptism?

No, or at least, not according to our authorised liturgical material. This quotation comes from the Church of England's Common Worship: Christian Initiation, from the notes on the rite of emergency baptism:

quote:
Parents are responsible for requesting emergency baptism for an infant. They should be assured that questions of ultimate salvation or of the provision of a Christian funeral for an infant who dies do not depend upon whether or not the child has been baptized.

I would suggest that this covers the belief of the vast majority of Anglicans.

Some would believe that it doesn't really matter at all, but that it's a nice way to welcome a child into the world and the Church. Others would say that it is vitally important, that it is the primary means by which God gives his life to those he has called, and that those who can be baptised should be. Such people (and it's probably obvious that I'm included in their number) would say that the lack of the step doesn't necessarily stop the action of God's grace, but that if it is possible to baptise a child (especially one in imminent danger of death) we should, since it is the means that God and the Church has given us.

[ 08. July 2012, 20:55: Message edited by: Basilica ]

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Can someone explain to me why it tends to be those who believe in the Reformation principle of faith, rather than works, are so insistent that baptism depends on the work of 'firm belief' rather than the faith (often like a grain of mustard seed) that God will do what God promises?

The CW liturgy says that faith is the gift of God to his people. Faith, trust, firm belief are all synonymous and they from God to us. The point of difference regarding baptism concerns what God has actually promised concerning baptism.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
From a position of genuine ignorance:

(S)pike couchant said:
quote:
a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord
I'm aware that he was baptised, but where did he institute it?

It could be Matt 28:18-20. Or perhaps before.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I wasn't aware that baptism was any less salvific for infants with confused mothers, but then one learns something every day. A lot of this thread seems to be filled with what looks frankly like intellectual snobbery (and probably also social snobbery) on the part of Evangelicals, who seem to regard baptism as something intended for 'People Like Us' — good little Evangelicals with a well articulated understanding of Christian doctrine — rather than a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord and efficacious, ex opere operato, for the salvation of the human race.
Christ did not institute baptism for the salvation of the human race. He reserved that exclusively to himself: crucified, risen, ascended and glorified. Salvation is found in Christ alone. That's not snobbery, it's the gospel.

So what did Christ mean when he said that “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5)? And what about St. Paul? “He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.” (Tit 3:5)

I believe that you are confusing the saviour and the basis of salvation with the means of salvation.

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
For my clarification ( as a lowly Baptist Minister)as it seems some on this thread are suggesting this but it maybe I am misreading.

Do Anglicans really believe a person can not receive salvation unless s/he is baptised?
I can't answer for all Anglicans, but my own view is that, whilst 'the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude'*, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our theology, and there may well be other means of salvation known to God but not revealed to us.

*Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.

quote:
Is this the primary reason for Infant Baptism?
Yes.

No. This is not the primary reason why the Church of England is happy to baptise infants.

The primary reason is that the tradition (i.e. liturgy handed down) has always been to baptise infants and this is supported by scripture. The church has never seen age as a barrier or intelectual engagement as necessary for baptism. In the conventional formulae, baptism is an outward, visible sign of an inward, invisible grace.

I probably would argue that only the baptised are sure of salvation. Its just that for some of the righteous, the Baptism by the Holy Spirit happened and the dip in the font didn't.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Can someone explain to me why it tends to be those who believe in the Reformation principle of faith, rather than works, are so insistent that baptism depends on the work of 'firm belief' rather than the faith (often like a grain of mustard seed) that God will do what God promises?
The CW liturgy says that faith is the gift of God to his people. Faith, trust, firm belief are all synonymous and they from God to us. The point of difference regarding baptism concerns what God has actually promised concerning baptism.

So the young woman whose sole glimmer of faith consists in walking up the vicarage path with very confused ideas, is not favoured by God?

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Can someone explain to me why it tends to be those who believe in the Reformation principle of faith, rather than works, are so insistent that baptism depends on the work of 'firm belief' rather than the faith (often like a grain of mustard seed) that God will do what God promises?
The CW liturgy says that faith is the gift of God to his people. Faith, trust, firm belief are all synonymous and they from God to us. The point of difference regarding baptism concerns what God has actually promised concerning baptism.
So the young woman whose sole glimmer of faith consists in walking up the vicarage path with very confused ideas, is not favoured by God?

Not particularly.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
For my clarification ( as a lowly Baptist Minister)as it seems some on this thread are suggesting this but it maybe I am misreading.

Do Anglicans really believe a person can not receive salvation unless s/he is baptised? Is this the primary reason for Infant Baptism?

Well, you might get different answers from different Anglicans. Such is the nature of Anglican theology.
[Big Grin]

In general, looking at the Anglican view of sacraments: A sacrament is a visible sign of an inner reality. In the case of baptism, the actual physical washing points to and signifies God's saving grace. So, when an infant is being baptized, the Church confesses that God is saving that person, pouring out His grace in order to effect a new creation. This grace is totally unmerited and given freely by God.

The actual physical aspect alone does not save anyone. However, the actual physical aspect points to and signifies to genuine grace.

[ 09. July 2012, 00:26: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

From a Lutheran perspective, baptism is a means of grace. There are indeed other means of grace: the Lord's Supper, the hearing of the Word of God, and the mutual consolation of the faithful. Of all the means of grace: two are sacrament meaning the word of grace is combined with a earthly element. As has previously pointed out in Baptism God is taking the initiative to formally declare this person is his child.

Baptism gives faith. As parents we promise to nurture that faith as the child grows up.

Can a child receive faith through other means? yes of course. Can an unbaptized child have salvation? Yes, of course. But I can tell you it is much more comforting to a family who lost a baby when they are assured the baby is a child of God by virtue of his/her baptism.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Can someone explain to me why it tends to be those who believe in the Reformation principle of faith, rather than works, are so insistent that baptism depends on the work of 'firm belief' rather than the faith (often like a grain of mustard seed) that God will do what God promises?

The main biblical answer to that lies in the fact that the command to be baptised is always combined with the command to repent / become disciples. The two are NOT different processes which the church can gratuitously separate, but together constitute the salvific event.

The biblical case for infant baptism is built out of the references in Acts to the baptism of households WHEN THE ADULTS BECAME BELIEVERS. It's on that basis that some Evangelicals are willing to baptise the children of believers, but take great exception to baptising anything that just turns up on the door step. This is also the basis for the baptism service to require major vows before God about how the child will be bought up and for requiring significant baptism preparation classes to help people realise what they are claiming when they have their baby baptised.

I would reject the interpretation of the John 3 passage as having anything to do with baptism: for me being born by water is natural birth, and being born of the Spirit is spiritual birth. The FACT that people do 'see the kingdom of God' without being baptised is a demonstration of the validity of this interpretation; for me this is a part of John's emphasis on the role of the Spirit in conversion.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I asked

quote:
So the young woman whose sole glimmer of faith consists in walking up the vicarage path with very confused ideas, is not favoured by God?

and Daron replied

quote:
Not particularly.

And this is the Christian gospel??? [Mad]

[ 09. July 2012, 08:34: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I asked
quote:
So the young woman whose sole glimmer of faith consists in walking up the vicarage path with very confused ideas, is not favoured by God?
and Daron replied
quote:
Not particularly.
And this is the Christian gospel???

Yes. Self-interested superstition and folk religiosity are not signs of God's favour. The job of the minister in that situation was to explain the gospel with clarity and compassion, not to dress his evangelistic incompetence in the clothing of obsequious sycophancy. Pathetic.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

The point, surely, is that irrespective of this mother's confused behaviour there is nothing to stop her being favoured by God. The confused behaviour is not itself a signifier of this favour, but I don't think anyone was actually suggesting that.

"When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax-collectors, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does he eat with tax-collectors and sinners?’ When Jesus heard this, he said to them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’"

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

All true. But the solution to the woman's confusion is not a the sacrament of baptism for her baby. The solution to her confusion is the inward spiritual grace of which baptism is the outward and visible sign: namely, saving faith in Christ Jesus. Baptism doesn't create faith: it signifies faith imparted directly by the Holy Spirit. How? Apostolic teaching says that faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word of Christ.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The point, surely, is that irrespective of this mother's confused behaviour there is nothing to stop her being favoured by God.

Oh, I'm sure she's a recipient of God's common favour or grace, she's just not particularly favoured, theologically speaking. [Razz]

Angloid didn't get my little theological joke...

[ 09. July 2012, 10:04: Message edited by: Daron ]

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I will agree that the Minister's response in this particular situation was not ideal, and will probably have served to reinforce the rather bizarre beliefs of the grandmother in the story.

He was placed in a very, very difficult position, though. The sixteen year old mother was herself no more than a child and was probably terrified about having to approach the vicarage, against her will, and no doubt solely to placate the protestations of her mother. What could he have done differently in the same situation? It would be nice to think that he could have explained gently but firmly that although Baptism is a wonderful thing, its relationship to success at bingo was very likely non-existent. Even better if that could have led on to a free discussion with the girl regarding her own beliefs and what she wanted to see for her child, including what she wanted the baptism for.

Again, though, I come back to how young the mother was, how frightened she likely was, and the seeming coercion from her own mother. Any attempt to dig around too much may well have frightened the girl off at once, never to set foot in or near that church ever again. We don't know what the effect of that would have been on the relationship between the mother and grandmother of the baby.

I do think the vicar involved was placed in a very difficult position, and none of us can say exactly what we would have done in the same situation, without actually having experienced it ourselves.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

'Obsequious sycophancy'?? Recognising the Christ in our neighbour is equated with this, now, is it?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I would say it would be more loving and indeed Christlike to disabuse the petitioner of her ignorance than to play along with it.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
It would be nice to think that he could have explained gently but firmly that although Baptism is a wonderful thing, its relationship to success at bingo was very likely non-existent. Even better if that could have led on to a free discussion with the girl regarding her own beliefs and what she wanted to see for her child, including what she wanted the baptism for.

I wouldn't want to make too much of the original story, which as it was related (in a sermon) was clearly out of context, and probably largely if not entirely fictitious. But the point being made was clearly that even a tiny and confused move in the direction of God was capable of growing into a greater awareness provided it wasn't stamped on or quenched. And to those who think that Baptism should come at the end rather than the beginning of this process, who are we to turn God's free grace into a prize for spiritual athletes?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would say it would be more loving and indeed Christlike to disabuse the petitioner of her ignorance than to play along with it.

I would have thought that a wise priest would accept the request for Baptism at face value, then make no apologies for explaining its significance and the importance of promises, while at the same time making clear that 'understanding' is not something that any of us ever have totally and all need to grow into.

If I say to someone: 'Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?' , and they say 'I turn to Christ', who am I to reply, 'I don't believe you' ? If they say, 'I'm not sure what that means', I'd have to say, 'Nor am I. Let's go on this journey together and trust in God to show us.'

[ 09. July 2012, 10:34: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I will agree that the Minister's response in this particular situation was not ideal, and will probably have served to reinforce the rather bizarre beliefs of the grandmother in the story.

He was placed in a very, very difficult position, though. The sixteen year old mother was herself no more than a child and was probably terrified about having to approach the vicarage, against her will, and no doubt solely to placate the protestations of her mother. What could he have done differently in the same situation? It would be nice to think that he could have explained gently but firmly that although Baptism is a wonderful thing, its relationship to success at bingo was very likely non-existent. Even better if that could have led on to a free discussion with the girl regarding her own beliefs and what she wanted to see for her child, including what she wanted the baptism for.

Again, though, I come back to how young the mother was, how frightened she likely was, and the seeming coercion from her own mother. Any attempt to dig around too much may well have frightened the girl off at once, never to set foot in or near that church ever again. We don't know what the effect of that would have been on the relationship between the mother and grandmother of the baby.

I do think the vicar involved was placed in a very difficult position, and none of us can say exactly what we would have done in the same situation, without actually having experienced it ourselves.

He might have done. Jesus welcomed people first and then challenged / corrected them later once he'd established a relationship with them.

The danger with starting with an attempt at correction at the start would have meant all the girl heard was a "No, go away ....". Not great.

Tubbs

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would say it would be more loving and indeed Christlike to disabuse the petitioner of her ignorance than to play along with it.
I would have thought that a wise priest would accept the request for Baptism at face value, then make no apologies for explaining its significance and the importance of promises, while at the same time making clear that 'understanding' is not something that any of us ever have totally and all need to grow into.

If I say to someone: 'Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?' , and they say 'I turn to Christ', who am I to reply, 'I don't believe you' ? If they say, 'I'm not sure what that means', I'd have to say, 'Nor am I. Let's go on this journey together and trust in God to show us.'

Where's the Gospel in all that, though?

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would say it would be more loving and indeed Christlike to disabuse the petitioner of her ignorance than to play along with it.
I would have thought that a wise priest would accept the request for Baptism at face value, then make no apologies for explaining its significance and the importance of promises, while at the same time making clear that 'understanding' is not something that any of us ever have totally and all need to grow into.

If I say to someone: 'Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?' , and they say 'I turn to Christ', who am I to reply, 'I don't believe you' ? If they say, 'I'm not sure what that means', I'd have to say, 'Nor am I. Let's go on this journey together and trust in God to show us.'
Where's the Gospel in all that, though?

It's a start though isn't it?!

Tubbs

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Indeed, but I hope it wouldn't be left there.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
'Obsequious sycophancy'?? Recognising the Christ in our neighbour is equated with this, now, is it?

Christ is ascended and in session. He is present in those who have his Spirit. He is not present in unbelievers.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
All true. But the solution to the woman's confusion is not a the sacrament of baptism for her baby.

Not the solution to her confusion, but a good in itself despite said confusion. Baptism is efficacious toward salvation regardless of the worthiness of recipient and, indeed, of that of the minister (would should come as some consolation to the members of your flock).

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
All true. But the solution to the woman's confusion is not a the sacrament of baptism for her baby.
Not the solution to her confusion, but a good in itself despite said confusion. Baptism is efficacious toward salvation regardless of the worthiness of recipient and, indeed, of that of the minister (would should come as some consolation to the members of your flock).

Baptism with water or in water does not effect salvation in any sense whatsoever.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
All true. But the solution to the woman's confusion is not a the sacrament of baptism for her baby.
Not the solution to her confusion, but a good in itself despite said confusion. Baptism is efficacious toward salvation regardless of the worthiness of recipient and, indeed, of that of the minister (would should come as some consolation to the members of your flock).
Baptism with water or in water does not effect salvation in any sense whatsoever.

In hell, Vangieboy.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would say it would be more loving and indeed Christlike to disabuse the petitioner of her ignorance than to play along with it.
If I say to someone: 'Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?' , and they say 'I turn to Christ', who am I to reply, 'I don't believe you' ? If they say, 'I'm not sure what that means', I'd have to say, 'Nor am I. Let's go on this journey together and trust in God to show us.'

Fallen in any ditches lately?

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

The points made by Basillica and Anglican_Brat are more in line with what I had thought about the general theological opinion of Anglicans and Baptism.

I also agree with much of the theology about Baptism being an outward sign of the inward grace of God.

I do have questions for those who feel Baptism is the means of which brings about Salvation.

The NT church always seems to teach that Repentance comes before the command to be Baptised. Surely Repentance is the key to salvation and not Baptism?

Also in regards to Infant Baptism if the above is the case then how can infants demonstrate repentance? IMHO the reading of scripture that permits Infant Baptism is more eisegesis than a good exegesis! What about the children who sadly die without being Baptised??

I do appreciate the factor of Baptism of Infants being a way of welcoming a child into God's family. Just don't agree that this can only be done through Baptism. Dedicating a child is equally valid and gives space for the child to grow and choose what s/he wants later on in life.

I'd also question the comment that anything especially Baptism can assure someone of the eternal hope. We simply can not have the viewpoint that I'm baptised, ticked that box and all is well. Where is this found in scripture?

In regards to the vicar and the request from the 16yr old. It's at times like this I am grateful for being a Baptist as I don't have the same pressure or obligation to 'perform' the sacraments as in the established Church. All I can pray is that God will work through the things s/he did well and as well as the mistakes s/he made.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
'Obsequious sycophancy'?? Recognising the Christ in our neighbour is equated with this, now, is it?
Christ is ascended and in session. He is present in those who have his Spirit. He is not present in unbelievers.

I've always wanted to believe that evangelicals shared the same faith as the rest of us. Unfortunately I think some of them are from a different religion altogether. [Disappointed]

I'd call this response pharisaic except I'm sure that is to malign the pharisees.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

@(S)pike It's possible to administer the 'element' without the act qualifying as a sacrament (cf. 1 Cor. 11). If the grace signified is absent, the element administered is not a sacrament. It is a travesty.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
'Obsequious sycophancy'?? Recognising the Christ in our neighbour is equated with this, now, is it?
Christ is ascended and in session. He is present in those who have his Spirit. He is not present in unbelievers.
I've always wanted to believe that evangelicals shared the same faith as the rest of us.

despite the fact that we've been saying you don't for centuries? We need a listening process!

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
I do have questions for those who feel Baptism is the means of which brings about Salvation.

The NT church always seems to teach that Repentance comes before the command to be Baptised. Surely Repentance is the key to salvation and not Baptism?

Also in regards to Infant Baptism if the above is the case then how can infants demonstrate repentance?

If you look in an Anglican baptismal liturgy, you will find a repentance. Repentance means more than just "being sorry for sins": it means metanoia, a complete change from one state of being to another. That means both being sorry for and rejecting sin, and also turning one's whole person to Christ.

If we look at the Common Worship liturgy (it's in the volume called Christian Initiation, p67), we find a section called The Decision, which precedes the actual baptismal rite:

quote:
P: In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light. To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him. Therefore I ask:
Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
B: I reject them.
P: Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
B: I renounce them.
P: Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour
B: I repent of them.
P: Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
B: I turn to Christ.
P: Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
B: I submit to Christ.
P: Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
B: I come to Christ.

I suppose the distinctive feature of paedobaptism is the idea that intellectual assent isn't the key factor in repentance, that it is a life-long journey involving the whole person. (I realise that this aspect is of course present in other theologies, but I think it's fair to say that intellectual assent plays a higher role in churches that practise believers' baptism.)

Anglican liturgy has always had the parents and godparents in a vicarious role, speaking for the child. (This was very clear in the BCP, lost in the ASB and has been recovered happily in Common Worship.)

quote:
I'd also question the comment that anything especially Baptism can assure someone of the eternal hope. We simply can not have the viewpoint that I'm baptised, ticked that box and all is well. Where is this found in scripture?

I would distinguish the hope of salvation from salvation itself. In baptism -- and in the other sacraments of the Church -- we are assured of the hope of everlasting life; we are assured that God is pouring his grace upon us. We don't have a guarantee of the outcome of eternal life. Anglicans don't generally have a high Calvinist doctrine of assurance.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
'Obsequious sycophancy'?? Recognising the Christ in our neighbour is equated with this, now, is it?

Doing what people demand because you're afraid of them not liking you any more is obsequiousness. It seems clear to me that the CofE is guilty of institutional and sytematic obsequiousness toward the consumerist values of liberal democracy. The noisome sycophancy of its marriage project being a perfect example.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

(WTF does 'obsequious sycophancy' mean? [Confused]

)

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Who is this 'rest of us'?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I am a Christian not because of what I believe or do not believe and not because I go to mass on holy days of obligation, for it is perfectly possible for a Christian to lapse into heresy or apostasy (and I have myself lapsed from time to time), but because I was taken as an infant to a priest who baptized me in the name of the Triune God and pronounced that I was thereby 'received into Christ's holy Church, and [...] made a lively member of the same'.

In Anglican doctrine, your faithful reception of the sacrament is also vital.

From Article 25 'Of the Sacraments'

quote:
…in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect of operation…

and from Article 27 'Of Baptism'

quote:
…they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church…

The importance of the promises of parents and godparents at baptism is that it is primarily their responsibility to help and guide the child into that right reception.

Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
I know in the Church of England the ordained must agree that the doctrine in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are "agreeable to the Word of God"…

Not quite they are called upon to agree that

quote:
Led by the Holy Spirit, [the Church of England] has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

and to affirm their

quote:
…loyalty to this inheritance of faith as [their] inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in [their]care

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Indeed, but I hope it wouldn't be left there.

So would I. But I think Angloid's response of "I don't know either, let's find out ..." is a better place to start than the assumption lurking behind some of the responses that unless your theology and understanding are right, then it's game over. [Newsflash - None of us have our theology and understanding right!]

Describing faith as a journey may have been done to death, but it is ... For that girl it may have started with a knock on the door and a desire to win at bingo.

Tubbs

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
'Obsequious sycophancy'?? Recognising the Christ in our neighbour is equated with this, now, is it?
Doing what people demand because you're afraid of them not liking you any more is obsequiousness.

'I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, because you did not want to be accused of obsequiousness.' as Jesus might have said. (cf Matt 25.43)

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

Does that passage come before or after the parable of the fishing net where Jesus proves that the earth is flat?

[ 09. July 2012, 12:14: Message edited by: Daron ]

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

Also, I don't give people food packages when they come to my door because I want to suck up to some notion of Jesus in them. I do it because those people need food.

[ 09. July 2012, 12:33: Message edited by: Daron ]

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
Basillica Posted: If you look in an Anglican baptismal liturgy, you will find a repentance. Repentance means more than just "being sorry for sins": it means metanoia, a complete change from one state of being to another. That means both being sorry for and rejecting sin, and also turning one's whole person to Christ.

This understanding represents the core of Baptist Theology concerning sin as well. The whole person in repentance not just the expression of emotions. In addition the person as part of the community and just saying sorry and accepting Jesus and my personal Saviour!

quote:
I suppose the distinctive feature of paedobaptism is the idea that intellectual assent isn't the key factor in repentance, that it is a life-long journey involving the whole person. (I realise that this aspect is of course present in other theologies, but I think it's fair to say that intellectual assent plays a higher role in churches that practise believers' baptism.)

Am agreeing with all this as well and it is incorporated into my theology and ecclesiology. I don't have a problem with the role of Godparents either (which isn't as strange as it may have been for a Baptist). The difficulty I have with this aspect of Anglican theology is that the parents (or whoever it maybe) makes the decision for the child when only that child can make the choice when they are ready to. There's too many people who were Baptised as Infants and haven't darkened the doors of a church community since and who reject the faith.

For some they spend their whole lives rejecting God. Does this mean that at some point in their life journey they are cornered into repentance by God? Or does he simply allow an individual to make that choice of rejecting God and then respecting their decision to have what they wanted?

Whereas I agree intellectual assent is not the only factor because God looks at our hearts as well I think the ability to choose is integral to faith.

quote:
Anglicans don't generally have a high Calvinist doctrine of assurance.

Most Baptists in the pews wouldn't know what this is!!! [Big Grin]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:

I do appreciate the factor of Baptism of Infants being a way of welcoming a child into God's family. Just don't agree that this can only be done through Baptism. Dedicating a child is equally valid and gives space for the child to grow and choose what s/he wants later on in life.

The other argument in favor of paedobaptism, made primarily by Calvinists is that baptism is a sign that one is part of the covenant. In this view, baptism is seen as analogous to circumcism in the Jewish faith. Using that analogy:
Baptism = circumcism
Confirmation = Bar/Bat Mitzvah

People who are baptized infants do have an opportunity to affirm their faith publicly through the Sacrament of confirmation which includes the laying on of hands. In some ways, confirmation "completes" the baptismal rite, in that the end goal of the process is that the person himself/herself affirms the promises made by their sponsors at their baptism.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

@Daron

Some of your reasoning isn't that far different from mainstream evangelicals but the problem with your posts is that you seem to be saying that who is in and who isn't is definitive.

I'd agree with the points that we can never make such decisions. It's not our place.

Our responsibilities include simply re-telling the ancient gospel story as humbly as we can trying not to put individuals who are likely to be hurting off.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Also, I don't give people food packages when they come to my door because I want to suck up to some notion of Jesus in them. I do it because those people need food.

Of course you do. But Jesus is telling us that when we do that, even if we are not aware of it, we are in fact giving to him. 'Sucking up' has nothing to do with it.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

Has it really come to this? Honestly! Is it really not possible for a minister of the gospel to give a gracious, gentle, compassionate and well qualified 'No' to a pagan's request? For goodness sake!

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
For some they spend their whole lives rejecting God. Does this mean that at some point in their life journey they are cornered into repentance by God? Or does he simply allow an individual to make that choice of rejecting God and then respecting their decision to have what they wanted?

We don't know exactly how God works.

Baptism, in the Anglican view, leaves a permanent, unchangeable mark on the individual. All the visible Church can say when it baptises, is "God is at work with this person."

So yes, there are people who get baptized, who never end up darkening the doors of a church ever again. Just as there are people who come to the altar call one Sunday and never come back to the Church afterwards. However, the Church can never say definitely that God is not present in that person's life or what exactly the state of their spiritual life.

Yes, God does respect free will, in that God, I believe is non-coercive and loving. But I don't think God respects free will in the sense that a person rejects him one day and he washes his hands and says "Tough luck." I think God is always persuading and inviting people into deeper relationship with him. In Baptism, we confirm that God takes the initiative, even in infancy, God invites the child into relationship with him. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit even as an unborn child in his mother's womb. So, my objection to baptist theology on salvation is that my reading of Scripture suggests that there isn't a magic age when God suddenly starts to pay attention to a person. Baptism in my Anglican eyes, says more about God, than anything else.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Also, I don't give people food packages when they come to my door because I want to suck up to some notion of Jesus in them. I do it because those people need food.
Of course you do. But Jesus is telling us that when we do that, even if we are not aware of it, we are in fact giving to him. 'Sucking up' has nothing to do with it.

I don't think so. Jesus isn't taking about mercy ministry in that particular discourse. He's taking about how Christians should treat other Christians, not how how Christians should treat unbelievers. There are other places in scripture which do apply to such ministry, but this isn't one of them. This is more to with how Christians are called love one another, not the world in general.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Is it really not possible for a minister of the gospel to give a gracious, gentle, compassionate and well qualified 'No' to a pagan's request?

I think that according to Canon Law it is quite difficult to (with particular concern for baptism).

Thus, Canon B22.4 - "No minister shall refuse or, save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents, delay to baptize any infant within his cure that is brought to the church to be baptized, provided that due notice has been given and the provisions relating to godparents in these Canons are observed."

Instruction of parents, guardians and/or godparents is given as a reason to delay, but not ultimately to refuse.

The godparents themselves must be baptised (and preferably confimed) - Canon B23.4. They shall also be "persons who will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care for the children committed to their charge and by the example of their own godly living." according to Canon B23.2. If that isn't a subjective test, I don't know what is! I'm not sure if any parish priest is ever going to be in a position to know this absolutely, be it for members of the church, PCC, the curate, another priest or whoever.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Jesus isn't taking about mercy ministry in that particular discourse. He's taking about how Christians should treat other Christians, not how how Christians should treat unbelievers. There are other places in scripture which do apply to such ministry, but this isn't one of them. This is more to with how Christians are called love one another, not the world in general.

This is probably topic for Kerygmania (where I usually fear to tread). My sense though is that while the early Christians, seeking to establish an identity, might have interpreted it this way, it is more in keeping with the inclusive* message of the Gospel that Jesus wanted us to see all people of whatever faith or background, as brothers and sisters.
* I know this word will raise your hackles, Daron, but it's true.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

And when you get to Canon B22.6 there is no let out at all:

quote:
No minister being informed of the weakness or danger of death of any infant within his cure and therefore desired to go to baptize the same shall either refuse or delay to do so.

I think that unequivocal instruction must also inform the interpretation of Canon B22.4 as well, i.e. it is the presumption that the baptism of the child will and should happen.

[Following on from iamchristianhearmeroar]

[ 09. July 2012, 13:24: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

This parable is far from inclusive. Have you read the punch line?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
This parable is far from inclusive. Have you read the punch line?

Of course. And the ones who are excluded are the self-satisfied pious gits who failed to recognise Christ.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Also, I don't give people food packages when they come to my door because I want to suck up to some notion of Jesus in them. I do it because those people need food.

Are you suggesting that there are some people who don't need baptism - who don't need to become closer to God and receive His grace?

Do you only provide food to those callers who understand fully the biochemical processes by which it will renew their body? Do you demand that they provide you with the exact menu they desire, and only provide it if it matches the one you have on your fridge?

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Also, I don't give people food packages when they come to my door because I want to suck up to some notion of Jesus in them. I do it because those people need food.
Of course you do. But Jesus is telling us that when we do that, even if we are not aware of it, we are in fact giving to him. 'Sucking up' has nothing to do with it.
I don't think so. Jesus isn't taking about mercy ministry in that particular discourse. He's taking about how Christians should treat other Christians, not how how Christians should treat unbelievers. There are other places in scripture which do apply to such ministry, but this isn't one of them. This is more to with how Christians are called love one another, not the world in general.

This is far from clear. The passage talks about supplying food, clothing, comfort to those in need - precisely "mercy ministry". Restricting its meaning to aid given to fellow-Christians seems dangerously like saying "And who is my neighbour?" (c.f. the Good Samaritan).

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

Verse 40. “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:40 NIV84)

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Also, I don't give people food packages when they come to my door because I want to suck up to some notion of Jesus in them. I do it because those people need food.
Are you suggesting that there are some people who don't need baptism - who don't need to become closer to God and receive His grace?

Someone isn't pregnant doesn't need a midwife. Someone who isn't a Christian doesn't need baptism.

quote:
Do you only provide food to those callers who understand fully the biochemical processes by which it will renew their body? Do you demand that they provide you with the exact menu they desire.

Sometimes they ask for things that I haven't got. And, frankly, sometimes they ask for things they don't need.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
these brothers of mine

Indeed, however verse 32 talks of all nations being gathered before Him, i.e Christ.

Of those "all nations" are separated out the sheep and the goats according to how they have treated "these brothers of mine". Whilst you might be able to argue that people are judged on their conduct towards only Christians (which I don't agree with), I don't think you can argue that this is about only Christians' behaviour to other Christians. Where does "all nations" come in otherwise?

[All with the disclaimer that I have no NT Greek at all]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

And as I said, didn't Jesus teach us to see all people as our brothers and sisters? Especially as he was speaking before the church existed.
(Oh, and I forgot, he said 'brothers': so we can safely ignore half the population anyway)

[ 09. July 2012, 13:40: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

But is that (and we aregetting Kerygmaniacal here I suppose) talking about the brotherhood of humankind (I very nearly went Eurovisiony there!) or brotherhood in a more narrow, Christian sense?

[cp with just about everyone else]

[ 09. July 2012, 13:41: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Someone isn't pregnant doesn't need a midwife. Someone who isn't a Christian doesn't need baptism.

Someone who isn't sick doesn't need a doctor, certainly...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Are you suggesting that there are some people who don't need baptism - who don't need to become closer to God and receive His grace?
Someone isn't pregnant doesn't need a midwife. Someone who isn't a Christian doesn't need baptism.

Isn't baptism the means by which one becomes a Christian?

quote:
Sometimes they ask for things that I haven't got. And, frankly, sometimes they ask for things they don't need.

And you're the judge of that, are you?

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

quote:
these brothers of mine
Indeed, however verse 32 talks of all nations being gathered before Him, i.e Christ.

Of those "all nations" are separated out the sheep and the goats according to how they have treated "these brothers of mine". Whilst you might be able to argue that people are judged on their conduct towards only Christians (which I don't agree with), I don't think you can argue that this is about only Christians' behaviour to other Christians. Where does "all nations" come in otherwise?

That's the nations or all people. Some are sheep, some are goats. The judgement of the nations, in this parable, takes place on the basis of how the church has been treated.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Isn't baptism the means by which one becomes a Christian?

Not according to evangelical soteriology.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

As a priest of the established Church of England, is Daron even allowed to refuse to baptize a child?

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
As a priest of the established Church of England, is Daron even allowed to refuse to baptize a child?

Canon Law would suggest not. See above posts here and here.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Isn't baptism the means by which one becomes a Christian?

Not according to evangelical soteriology.

Have you read the Acts of the Apostles Marvin? You should. Take look a the references to baptism and when they happen. It'll help clear up your confusion.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Ah, missed that. My apologies.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But is that (and we aregetting Kerygmaniacal here I suppose) talking about the brotherhood of humankind (I very nearly went Eurovisiony there!) or brotherhood in a more narrow, Christian sense?

[cp with just about everyone else]

Well you see that is why I worry about the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In that case the lawyer wants "neighbour" to refer narrowly, "in order to justify himself". But the parable indicates a) that it refers to everyone, not just co-religionists and b) that even a despised Samaritan can realise this truth, so how come this lawyer, who reckons he knows the truth so much better, doesn't do so? In fact his "religious" outlook has blinded him.

Punchline: "You ought to be more like the Samaritan..." ... or perhaps as it might be... "you ought to be more like those righteous non-Christians..."

Daron seems to be hanging a lot on what "brother" means here. I guess he could argue that Jesus uses "brother" in this sense in e.g. Mark 3:35. But perhaps the lawyer could have argued convincingly for his definition of "neighbour" as well.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Where does this whole view of baptism being essential for salvation come from?

Ok baptismal regeneration is mentioned in a c13th century catecism and the 1662 prayer book according to posts above. What's the biblical basis for the belief other than someone's interpretation?

If baptism IS essential for salvation, how does God treat unbaptised babies, those with learning difficulties & those not able to understand that what they might be doing is wrong?

How many of those taking aprt ina baptismal service understand that it is a grace or sacrament?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

But "whoever does the will of God" (per Mark 3:35) may not fit the (evangelical) definition of a Christian; the Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians were doing God's will when they duffed up the descendants of the Children of Israel but that didn't make them God's Chosen People...

[reply to Turquoisetastic]

[ 09. July 2012, 14:10: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

quote:
As a priest of the established Church of England, is Daron even allowed to refuse to baptize a child?
Canon Law would suggest not. See above posts here and here.

There are certain caveats within canon law which allow for a minister to refuse baptism, or at least to delay it for a set period of time for the purpose of catechesis. There are also quite stringent requirements in canon concerning the duties of godparents and parents.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But is that (and we aregetting Kerygmaniacal here I suppose) talking about the brotherhood of humankind (I very nearly went Eurovisiony there!) or brotherhood in a more narrow, Christian sense?

[cp with just about everyone else]
Well you see that is why I worry about the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In that case the lawyer wants "neighbour" to refer narrowly, "in order to justify himself". But the parable indicates a) that it refers to everyone, not just co-religionists and b) that even a despised Samaritan can realise this truth, so how come this lawyer, who reckons he knows the truth so much better, doesn't do so? In fact his "religious" outlook has blinded him.

Punchline: "You ought to be more like the Samaritan..." ... or perhaps as it might be... "you ought to be more like those righteous non-Christians..."

Daron seems to be hanging a lot on what "brother" means here. I guess he could argue that Jesus uses "brother" in this sense in e.g. Mark 3:35. But perhaps the lawyer could have argued convincingly for his definition of "neighbour" as well.

My only real issue is that this parable has diddly-squat to do with baptism or how nice I should be to Pagans.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Where does this whole view of baptism being essential for salvation come from?

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16

Mind, the proposition is NOT that those who are not baptized are necessarily damned- that isn't what the Church teaches and it isn't what the Bible says.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Where does this whole view of baptism being essential for salvation come from?
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16

Belief precedes baptism and belief trumps baptism. In short a baptised believer shall be saved. An unbeliever, baptised or not, shall not be saved. That's because we are saved by grace though faith and baptism is the outward and visible sign of that saving faith.

[ 09. July 2012, 14:21: Message edited by: Daron ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

quote:
As a priest of the established Church of England, is Daron even allowed to refuse to baptize a child?
Canon Law would suggest not. See above posts here and here.
There are certain caveats within canon law which allow for a minister to refuse baptism, or at least to delay it for a set period of time for the purpose of catechesis. There are also quite stringent requirements in canon concerning the duties of godparents and parents.

While the canon law of non-established Anglican churches would give some ground to a cleric refusing to baptize in infant brought by a parishioner, I do not see how a CoE cleric could do so. If a CoE priest has somehow read that a refusal is possible, they would be wise to have a legal opinion backing them up when the archdeacon or bishop comes to see why they have not fulfilled their pastoral duty-- for a curate, I suppose that I-have-followed-the-rector's-orders might sort-of work. I have twice seen a priest try to wiggle on this one and, were it not for the fact that I have become quite shameless in my old age, I would have been embarrassed on their behalf.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

Really? It looks to me that canon law makes provision for parishioners to petition the bishop if they feel the minister is being unreasonable. That suggests to me that the possibility of refusal exists, and that a minister's refusal might either be upheld or overruled by the bishop.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Where does this whole view of baptism being essential for salvation come from?
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16
Belief precedes baptism and belief trumps baptism. In short a baptised believer shall be saved. An unbeliever, baptised or not, shall not be saved. That's because we are saved by grace though faith and baptism is the outward and visible sign of that saving faith.

If you're going to quote the BCP catechism, please quote it properly. First off, it is a sign of grace, not faith: that is, it is a sign of God's gift, not of our response. Yes, it is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, but it's more than that:

quote:
Question. What meanest thou by this word Sacrament?
Answer. I mean an outward and visible signe of an inward and spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.
BCP 1662, Catechism

Traditional Anglican teaching has always said that a sacrament is more than just a sign.

[ 09. July 2012, 14:34: Message edited by: Basilica ]

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

Faith is a grace.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Faith is a grace.

Undoubtedly, but that is not what is referred to:

quote:
Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace?
Answer. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness: for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.
BCP 1662, Catechism

Sorry, Daron, but Anglican tradition is avowedly not on your side here.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
My only real issue is that this parable has diddly-squat to do with baptism or how nice I should be to Pagans.

The point is that those Pagans are your neighbour.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Traditional Anglican teaching has always said that a sacrament is more than just a sign.

Biblical evidence please

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Really? It looks to me that canon law makes provision for parishioners to petition the bishop if they feel the minister is being unreasonable. That suggests to me that the possibility of refusal exists, and that a minister's refusal might either be upheld or overruled by the bishop.

It may suggest that to you, but that is at variance with the text of the law. What it suggests to me is that, upon reviewing a priest's refusal, the bishop's actions would be (judicially) limited to correcting and disciplining the errant priest and (pastorally) providing for the ministry requested. CoE canons make it clear that delay is foreseen as legitimate and at times likely necessary. Excessive pyshotopric medication might sustain another perspective, I suppose.

I would think that most occasions of this sort are easily prevented by careful catechesis, assiduous attention to preaching and to the daily offices in the parish church, and meek and sacrificial witness. I have heard many astonishing stories by clerics on the requests which come their way (burial service for a turtle, anyone?) to admire how they respond by identifying the real need and using it as an opening to engage the enquirer in the Gospel. Refusal, I would think, precludes that. And in the case of the CoE, the canons would appear to agree. IMHO a sensible cleric, bent on refusing baptism, will beforehand have opened the case and their hearts to their bishop for his counsel, benefitting by his broader experience and apostolic grace (and also taking themselves out of the line of disciplinary fire).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Faith is a grace.
Undoubtedly, but that is not what is referred to:

quote:
Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace?
Answer. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness: for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.
BCP 1662, Catechism
Sorry, Daron, but Anglican tradition is avowedly not on your side here.

Tradition can be (and is) wrong.

What about John the Bptist's words (paraphrasing)-I baptise with water but he will baptise with the Holy Spirit and with fire? Seems to suggest on one level that water baptism is no longer required.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Traditional Anglican teaching has always said that a sacrament is more than just a sign.
Biblical evidence please

I just gave it?

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Traditional Anglican teaching has always said that a sacrament is more than just a sign.
Biblical evidence please

I'm sorry, but the biblical canon stops in c. AD 125, and therefore does not incorporate developments since 1539.

If you mean that you want biblical evidence supporting the traditional Anglican view, try Galatians 3.27, 1 Peter 3.21 or Acts 2.38 on for size.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Traditional Anglican teaching has always said that a sacrament is more than just a sign.
Biblical evidence please
I just gave it?

Oh, yes, sorry! Provided of course that you accept the long ending of Mark as an original piece not a later addition.

With your view, how do you understand the eternal destination of all the condemned that this verse speaks of including babies and unbaptised church goers?

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

@ Augustine the Aleut

quote:
I have heard many astonishing stories by clerics on the requests which come their way to admire how they respond by identifying the real need and using it as an opening to engage the enquirer in the Gospel.

Precisely.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Really? It looks to me that canon law makes provision for parishioners to petition the bishop if they feel the minister is being unreasonable. That suggests to me that the possibility of refusal exists, and that a minister's refusal might either be upheld or overruled by the bishop.

No, it suggests that the possibility of a priest breaking canon law exists.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Traditional Anglican teaching has always said that a sacrament is more than just a sign.
Biblical evidence please
I'm sorry, but the biblical canon stops in c. AD 125, and therefore does not incorporate developments since 1539.

If you mean that you want biblical evidence supporting the traditional Anglican view, try Galatians 3.27, 1 Peter 3.21 or Acts 2.38 on for size.

Provided you accept that developments since 1539 are in accordance with scripture.

All your examples refer to baptism by immersion (presumably adults) - and those who speak for themselves. Why then do Anglicans baptise babies, that is, those who can't speak for themselves?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
@ Augustine the Aleut

quote:
I have heard many astonishing stories by clerics on the requests which come their way to admire how they respond by identifying the real need and using it as an opening to engage the enquirer in the Gospel.
Precisely.

what do you mean, "precisely"? That's the exact opposite of the "if someone comes along with an astonishing request then send 'em packing like the filthy Pagan they are" approach you're advocating.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Or preach the Gospel to them...

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
My only real issue is that this parable has diddly-squat to do with baptism or how nice I should be to Pagans.
The point is that those Pagans are your neighbour.

So what? I can love my pagan neighbour by making them a sandwich, sitting down with them, and explaining that God loves them and sent his Son to die for the forgiveness of their sins before we start talking about baptising anyone into that very death.

Just giving them what they want isn't loving or neighbourly. At best it's just plain spiritually lazy. At worst is downright irresponsible because it offers false assurance of salvation to a lost soul.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Just giving them what they want isn't loving or neighbourly. At best it's just plain spiritually lazy. At worst is downright irresponsible because it offers false assurance of salvation to a lost soul.

Actually, baptizing that woman's kid is exactly what the Church of England is paying you to do. Do your job or inform your bishop of your inability to do so for reasons of conscience and doctrinal difference.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
@ Augustine the Aleut

quote:
I have heard many astonishing stories by clerics on the requests which come their way to admire how they respond by identifying the real need and using it as an opening to engage the enquirer in the Gospel.
Precisely.
what do you mean, "precisely"? That's the exact opposite of the "if someone comes along with an astonishing request then send 'em packing like the filthy Pagan they are" approach you're advocating.

Am I? I think you're misrepresenting me, Marvin. Either that or you've read less of this thread than you should have in order to make an accurate judgement.

[ 09. July 2012, 15:18: Message edited by: Daron ]

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Just giving them what they want isn't loving or neighbourly. At best it's just plain spiritually lazy. At worst is downright irresponsible because it offers false assurance of salvation to a lost soul.
Actually, baptizing that woman's kid is exactly what the Church of England is paying you to do. Do your job or inform your bishop of your inability to do so for reasons of conscience and doctrinal difference.

First off, no minister is paid by the CofE. Secondly, ministry is not a job. Thirdly, you don't know what conversations I've had with my bishop. Next.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Provided you accept that developments since 1539 are in accordance with scripture.

All your examples refer to baptism by immersion (presumably adults) - and those who speak for themselves. Why then do Anglicans baptise babies, that is, those who can't speak for themselves?

First off, Anglican tradition has always recognised that there have been developments in the faith since the biblical canon closed. Infant baptism has been the practice of the church since very early times, at least the second century.

If you believe that baptism is the way that one enters the church (which has solid scriptural foundation), that God's grace is prevenient (which has solid scriptural foundation), that the youngest child is as much a Christian as anyone else (which has solid scriptural foundation) and that through baptism God's grace is received (which has solid scriptural foundation), it seems necessary to baptise children.

God's grace comes first, not the individual's faith.

If you think that every part of the Church's action must have explicit scriptural basis, tough luck: that isn't the way that the ancient Church functioned, and it isn't the way that the modern Church should function.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Faith is a grace.
Undoubtedly, but that is not what is referred to:

quote:
Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace?
Answer. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness: for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.
BCP 1662, Catechism
Sorry, Daron, but Anglican tradition is avowedly not on your side here.

I do not believe in baptismal regeneration. I believe that all of the things mentioned the quote above are graces wrought sovereignly by the Holy Spirit. I also believe that baptism is an outward and visible sign of those graces. I do not accept that baptism in water effects what it signifies.

In this respect, I do not accept Anglican tradition as biblically tenable and consequently believe that it needs to be reformed.

[ 09. July 2012, 15:31: Message edited by: Daron ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

If you are so sure of your position, Daron, then write a letter informing your bishop of your refusal to baptize infants.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are so sure of your position, Daron, then write a letter informing your bishop of your refusal to baptize infants.

How do you know that I haven't?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's the exact opposite of the "if someone comes along with an astonishing request then send 'em packing like the filthy Pagan they are" approach you're advocating.
Am I? I think you're misrepresenting me, Marvin. Either that or you've read less of this thread than you should have in order to make an accurate judgement.

Yes, you are. Or so it seems to me anyway - how else would the theoretical girl in question take your "no, I won't baptise your baby because you're not one of us and Christ doesn't live in you" response?

Christ said "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" (Luke 18:16, NIV). I see no accompanying statement where He specifies that His words should apply only to the children of parents who have the correct doctrinal understanding. I do see you hindering the children from coming to Christ.

[ 09. July 2012, 15:35: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Provided you accept that developments since 1539 are in accordance with scripture.

All your examples refer to baptism by immersion (presumably adults) - and those who speak for themselves. Why then do Anglicans baptise babies, that is, those who can't speak for themselves?
1. First off, Anglican tradition has always recognised that there have been developments in the faith since the biblical canon closed. Infant baptism has been the practice of the church since very early times, at least the second century.

3. If you believe that baptism is the way that one enters the church (which has solid scriptural foundation), that God's grace is prevenient (which has solid scriptural foundation), that the youngest child is as much a Christian as anyone else (which has solid scriptural foundation) and that through baptism God's grace is received (which has solid scriptural foundation), it seems necessary to baptise children.

2. God's grace comes first, not the individual's faith.

If you think that every part of the Church's action must have explicit scriptural basis, tough luck: that isn't the way that the ancient Church functioned, and it isn't the way that the modern Church should function.

1. Tradition again. If I say something or do it twice then it becomes tradition does it not, whether it's right or wrong?

Who recognises the value of what tradition? On what basis?

2. I agree that grace comes first which is exactly why baptism is non regenerative: what needs to happen has happened and the water bit is only a sign or a witness to the fact.

3. Until anyone sins or is conscious of sin, then they are "in Christ" anyway. baptism only needed when a concious decision to do what is wrong can be entered into. Children/babies don't know right from wrong - hence no need of baptism until they can speak/act for themselves.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are so sure of your position, Daron, then write a letter informing your bishop of your refusal to baptize infants.

Can you answer my question above about the destination of the condemned in Mark 16:16? I'm interested - my children aren't baptised! Do they suffer because of my beliefs?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are so sure of your position, Daron, then write a letter informing your bishop of your refusal to baptize infants.
How do you know that I haven't?

Just a wild guess, based on what I know of people who fancy themselves reformers.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. I agree that grace comes first which is exactly why baptism is non regenerative: what needs to happen has happened and the water bit is only a sign or a witness to the fact.

3. Until anyone sins or is conscious of sin, then they are "in Christ" anyway. baptism only needed when a concious decision to do what is wrong can be entered into. Children/babies don't know right from wrong - hence no need of baptism until they can speak/act for themselves.

If point (2) is correct then point (3) cannot be - you simply can't say that baptism is not needed with one breath then insist that it is needed with the next!

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
In this respect, I do not accept Anglican tradition as biblically tenable and consequently believe that it needs to be reformed.

I think you're in the wrong job.

No, scratch that. You are in the wrong job.

Presumably when you went through discernment and vicar school and made your oaths of obedience, you knew what Anglican tradition was, why it was what it was, and why you had a duty to follow it?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. I agree that grace comes first which is exactly why baptism is non regenerative: what needs to happen has happened and the water bit is only a sign or a witness to the fact.

3. Until anyone sins or is conscious of sin, then they are "in Christ" anyway. baptism only needed when a concious decision to do what is wrong can be entered into. Children/babies don't know right from wrong - hence no need of baptism until they can speak/act for themselves.
If point (2) is correct then point (3) cannot be - you simply can't say that baptism is not needed with one breath then insist that it is needed with the next!

Aplogies! Sorry I wasn't very clear here was I! I meant that I feel baptism is only needed to demonstrate the existene of a changed life by someone able to make that decision for themselves, recognising the pre existent grace working out in their life.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I meant that I feel baptism is only needed to demonstrate the existene of a changed life by someone able to make that decision for themselves, recognising the pre existent grace working out in their life.

Demonstrate to whom?

Are you reducing one of the sacraments of the church to the level of something one does to show off how full of grace one is?

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
1. First off, Anglican tradition has always recognised that there have been developments in the faith since the biblical canon closed. Infant baptism has been the practice of the church since very early times, at least the second century.

3. If you believe that baptism is the way that one enters the church (which has solid scriptural foundation), that God's grace is prevenient (which has solid scriptural foundation), that the youngest child is as much a Christian as anyone else (which has solid scriptural foundation) and that through baptism God's grace is received (which has solid scriptural foundation), it seems necessary to baptise children.

2. God's grace comes first, not the individual's faith.

If you think that every part of the Church's action must have explicit scriptural basis, tough luck: that isn't the way that the ancient Church functioned, and it isn't the way that the modern Church should function.
1. Tradition again. If I say something or do it twice then it becomes tradition does it not, whether it's right or wrong?

Who recognises the value of what tradition? On what basis?

No, but if centuries of theologians and practising Christians have wrestled with a concept and found it to reflect the will of God, I'm prepared to trust it. This isn't a formula for a nice neat systematic theological package, but for a faith that has to be lived, grappled with.

quote:
2. I agree that grace comes first which is exactly why baptism is non regenerative: what needs to happen has happened and the water bit is only a sign or a witness to the fact.

I wholly disagree. God's grace comes first, so we do not require that someone have an intellectual understanding of the Christian faith before they are baptised. But that in no way means that the sacrament of baptism cannot be a particular grace, whereby a person becomes a Christian and begins their life in Christ.

Of course God's grace is at work in a person before baptism: God's grace is at work in everything good (Article X).

quote:
3. Until anyone sins or is conscious of sin, then they are "in Christ" anyway. baptism only needed when a concious decision to do what is wrong can be entered into. Children/babies don't know right from wrong - hence no need of baptism until they can speak/act for themselves.

Leaving aside the doctrine of original sin, for me baptism has rather more effect than just the cancellation of sin.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are so sure of your position, Daron, then write a letter informing your bishop of your refusal to baptize infants.
Can you answer my question above about the destination of the condemned in Mark 16:16? I'm interested - my children aren't baptised! Do they suffer because of my beliefs?

The Bible says that baptism is God's means of salvation. It just doesn't say whether or not God has other means.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I would issue one important correction to the statement re tradition: centuries of theologians and practising Christians have wrestled with the issue and disagreed as to the nature and effect of baptism. The epistemological jury is most definitely out on this one...

[cp with Zach]

[ 09. July 2012, 15:53: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's the exact opposite of the "if someone comes along with an astonishing request then send 'em packing like the filthy Pagan they are" approach you're advocating.
Am I? I think you're misrepresenting me, Marvin. Either that or you've read less of this thread than you should have in order to make an accurate judgement.
Yes, you are. Or so it seems to me anyway - how else would the theoretical girl in question take your "no, I won't baptise your baby because you're not one of us and Christ doesn't live in you" response?

Christ said "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" (Luke 18:16, NIV). I see no accompanying statement where He specifies that His words should apply only to the children of parents who have the correct doctrinal understanding. I do see you hindering the children from coming to Christ.

If that quote is about baptism, then 1 Timothy 2:9 is about unicorns. Really! What on earth are you talking about man? There is absolutely diddly-squat in that discourse about baptism. It's about the laying on of hands for Jesus the bless their children. If that was good enough for Jesus, then is should be good enough for his ministers.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would issue one important correction to the statement re tradition: centuries of theologians and practising Christians have wrestled with the issue and disagreed as to the nature and effect of baptism. The epistemological jury is most definitely out on this one...

Such is the nature of a mystery, and of a sacrament, and of theology, and of God, alas!

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are so sure of your position, Daron, then write a letter informing your bishop of your refusal to baptize infants.
Can you answer my question above about the destination of the condemned in Mark 16:16? I'm interested - my children aren't baptised! Do they suffer because of my beliefs?
The Bible says that baptism is God's means of salvation.

No Zach. No, it really doesn't say that at all. I know you want it to say that, but it doesn't. It just doesn't.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
If that quote is about baptism, then 1 Timothy 2:9 is about unicorns.

I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about you hindering them from coming to Christ. That the specific means by which they want to come to Christ happens in this case to be baptism is neither here nor there.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are so sure of your position, Daron, then write a letter informing your bishop of your refusal to baptize infants.
Can you answer my question above about the destination of the condemned in Mark 16:16? I'm interested - my children aren't baptised! Do they suffer because of my beliefs?
The Bible says that baptism is God's means of salvation.
No Zach. No, it really doesn't say that at all. I know you want it to say that, but it doesn't. It just doesn't.

Christ is the means of salvation

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

Daron, this is clearly Kerygmania, but what say you to 1 Peter 3:21. In the NRSV translation at least this refers to the salvific quality of baptism.

[Same disclaimer about koin Greek...]

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
If that quote is about baptism, then 1 Timothy 2:9 is about unicorns.
I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about you hindering them from coming to Christ. That the specific means by which they want to come to Christ happens in this case to be baptism is neither here nor there.

Nonsense. The children in that passage came to Christ in way that we can only dream about and there wasn't a drop of water involved. The passage isn't about baptism. End of.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
No Zach. No, it really doesn't say that at all. I know you want it to say that, but it doesn't. It just doesn't.

Yes Daron. It really does. I know you don't know it says so, but I know it says so because I just cited where it does. It just does.

Gee wiz, that was an exhilarating debate. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
If that quote is about baptism, then 1 Timothy 2:9 is about unicorns.
I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about you hindering them from coming to Christ. That the specific means by which they want to come to Christ happens in this case to be baptism is neither here nor there.
Nonsense. The children in that passage came to Christ in way that we can only dream about and there wasn't a drop of water involved. The passage isn't about baptism. End of.

And of course it therefore has no relevance at all to our baptismal practice. Riiiight.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would issue one important correction to the statement re tradition: centuries of theologians and practising Christians have wrestled with the issue and disagreed as to the nature and effect of baptism. The epistemological jury is most definitely out on this one...
Such is the nature of a mystery, and of a sacrament, and of theology, and of God, alas!

If it's such a mystery, why then, you might just be wrong!

[ 09. July 2012, 16:11: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
No Zach. No, it really doesn't say that at all. I know you want it to say that, but it doesn't. It just doesn't.
Yes Daron. It really does. I know you don't know it says so, but I know it says so because I just cited where it does.

You didn't. You may think you did, but you didn't. Read it again.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would issue one important correction to the statement re tradition: centuries of theologians and practising Christians have wrestled with the issue and disagreed as to the nature and effect of baptism. The epistemological jury is most definitely out on this one...
Such is the nature of a mystery, and of a sacrament, and of theology, and of God, alas!

Then one has to admit the possibility of the theology being wrong.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Nonsense. The children in that passage came to Christ in way that we can only dream about and there wasn't a drop of water involved. The passage isn't about baptism. End of.

Jeez, the point is that someone seeking baptism is seeking to come to Christ. You are hindering them from finding what they seek. Ergo you are directly contravening Christ's instruction in Luke 18:16.

Besides which, if "the kingdom of God belongs to such as these", who the hell are you to say that "such as these" can't be baptised?

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

Not at all. I would lay hands on the children and bless them. That's what Jesus did. Why on earth would add baptism into the mix? Jesus didn't.

[ 09. July 2012, 16:17: Message edited by: Daron ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Nonsense. The children in that passage came to Christ in way that we can only dream about and there wasn't a drop of water involved. The passage isn't about baptism. End of.
Jeez, the point is that someone seeking baptism is seeking to come to Christ. You are hindering them from finding what they seek. Ergo you are directly contravening Christ's instruction in Luke 18:16.

Besides which, if "the kingdom of God belongs to such as these", who the hell are you to say that "such as these" can't be baptised?

Assuming of course that baptism is the (or even a) means of coming to Christ. As indicated, Christians do not agree on that.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Christ is the means of salvation

Indeed, and in the catholic tradition it is believed that this salvation is given at baptism.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would issue one important correction to the statement re tradition: centuries of theologians and practising Christians have wrestled with the issue and disagreed as to the nature and effect of baptism. The epistemological jury is most definitely out on this one...
Such is the nature of a mystery, and of a sacrament, and of theology, and of God, alas!
If it's such a mystery, why then, you might just be wrong!

Yes.

If I ever give the impression that there is any aspect of theology or ecclesial practice where I have no shadow of doubt in any fashion, please feel free to call me out on it.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Has it really come to this? Honestly! Is it really not possible for a minister of the gospel to give a gracious, gentle, compassionate and well qualified 'No' to a pagan's request? For goodness sake!

Maybe that minister of the Gospel could, instead of saying "no", say "Of course we can baptise your child. But when we do that there are some promises you will have to make, and we need to talk about those first..." And so on.

That at least fits into the canon law, if said minister is the incumbent of a CofE parish.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
You didn't. You may think you did, but you didn't. Read it again.

Daron uses the Monty Python method of debate.

"your arm's off!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes it is, it's right there!"

".....it's just a flesh wound!"

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

Interesting how canon law gets quoted as sacrosanct concerning baptism by people who are gagging to change it concerning other innovations in the church.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
You didn't. You may think you did, but you didn't. Read it again.
Daron uses the Monty Python method of debate.

"your arm's off!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes it is, it's right there!"

".....it's just a flesh wound!"

Zach, when you bring something worthy to the debate, I'll take the time compose a worthy reply. At present you just keep asserting things without explicitly or implicitly substantiating them.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Has it really come to this? Honestly! Is it really not possible for a minister of the gospel to give a gracious, gentle, compassionate and well qualified 'No' to a pagan's request? For goodness sake!
Maybe that minister of the Gospel could, instead of saying "no", say "Of course we can baptise your child. But when we do that there are some promises you will have to make, and we need to talk about those first..." And so on.

Which is exactly my position. Except I would probably be a lot more prepared to take a 'yes' at face value.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Interesting how canon law gets quoted as sacrosanct concerning baptism by people who are gagging to change it concerning other innovations in the church.

Eh? You were the one who quoted the canon law!

Also if you remember the other thread I mostly agree with you. And not with Zach and the others here.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Interesting how canon law gets quoted as sacrosanct concerning baptism by people who are gagging to change it concerning other innovations in the church.

There's a logical flaw there... It is because I think canon law is important that I wish to change it. If I didn't think it important, I should simply ignore it.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Christ is the means of salvation
Indeed, and in the catholic tradition it is believed that this salvation is given at baptism.

In the protestant tradition it isn't.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Interesting how canon law gets quoted as sacrosanct concerning baptism by people who are gagging to change it concerning other innovations in the church.
Eh? You were the one who quoted the canon law!

Also if you remember the other thread I mostly agree with you. And not with Zach and the others here.

I said "quoted as sacrosanct", ken. I think canon is helpful in some cases, a hindrance in others and irrelevant in yet others. But infallible it most certainly is not. It's just interesting that people who would probably support the revisionist cause over other issues are prepared to batten down the Anglican hatches and toe the party line (to mix my metaphors) when it comes to others. We all do it.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Christ is the means of salvation
Indeed, and in the catholic tradition it is believed that this salvation is given at baptism.
In the protestant tradition it isn't.

The writings of Martin Luther say otherwise. John Calvin, showing his grimly poetic side, made drowning the sentence for anyone refusing to recant Anabaptism.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I said "quoted as sacrosanct", ken. I think canon is helpful in some cases, a hindrance in others and irrelevant in yet others. But infallible it most certainly is not. It's just interesting that people who would probably support the revisionist cause over other issues are prepared to batten down the Anglican hatches and toe the party line (to mix my metaphors) when it comes to others. We all do it.

Daron thinks the rules don't apply to him. Go figure.

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I said "quoted as sacrosanct", ken. I think canon is helpful in some cases, a hindrance in others and irrelevant in yet others. But infallible it most certainly is not. It's just interesting that people who would probably support the revisionist cause over other issues are prepared to batten down the Anglican hatches and toe the party line (to mix my metaphors) when it comes to others. We all do it.
Daron thinks the rules don't apply to him. Go figure.

Zach displays yet another tragic attempt at clairvoyance!

If you take some time to read the thread about baptism that I started some time ago, you'll see that I take tradition, canon law, Anglican liturgy, the Catechism, the Articles and above all scripture very seriously as each warrants in accordance with my ordination vows.

[ 09. July 2012, 17:08: Message edited by: Daron ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

So you've told your bishop that you have no intention of following the canons of the Church of England then?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Christ is the means of salvation
Indeed, and in the catholic tradition it is believed that this salvation is given at baptism.
In the protestant tradition it isn't.
The writings of Martin Luther say otherwise. John Calvin, showing his grimly poetic side, made drowning the sentence for anyone refusing to recant Anabaptism.

Ooops should've said "my" protestant tradition -- I give you Calvin but wasn't Luther deluded on one or two bits (eg consubstantiation ..... but that's another argument)

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Ooops should've said "my" protestant tradition -- I give you Calvin but wasn't Luther deluded on one or two bits (eg consubstantiation ..... but that's another argument)

It goes without saying that I am not arguing your tradition against you.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So you've told your bishop that you have no intention of following the canons of the Church of England then?

Yoiu still haven't told me what's going to happen to unbaptised children who go to church and adults who believe and are unbaptised. I don't like to assume I know what you think but I'd really like to know!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So you've told your bishop that you have no intention of following the canons of the Church of England then?
Yoiu still haven't told me what's going to happen to unbaptised children who go to church and adults who believe and are unbaptised. I don't like to assume I know what you think but I'd really like to know!

I already said all I will. The Bible says that baptism is God's means of salvation, but does not say that those who are unbaptized are necessarily damned for it.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So you've told your bishop that you have no intention of following the canons of the Church of England then?
Yoiu still haven't told me what's going to happen to unbaptised children who go to church and adults who believe and are unbaptised. I don't like to assume I know what you think but I'd really like to know!
I already said all I will. The Bible says that baptism is God's means of salvation, but does not say that those who are unbaptized are necessarily damned for it.

Ok then why bother to baptise?

Or, are you with God in condemning my children to a lost eternity?

I think you need to put up on this one!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?

Or, are you with God in condemning my children to a lost eternity?

I think you need to put up on this one!

I don't subscribe to the low-church "Only the strictly necessary is permissible" doctrine.

Baptism is God's means of grace, which confers forgiveness of sins and grafts one into the Body of Christ. If you think that is the sort of thing your children should (or can, at their age) have, then have them baptized.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?

Because it's a command of Our Lord.

Our Lord did not in fact say "only baptize when they reach the age of accountability." He did say "baptize all nations." I imagine children would fall under "all nations."

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
John Calvin, showing his grimly poetic side, made drowning the sentence for anyone refusing to recant Anabaptism.

I wonder how come he managed that, when at the time they started drowning Anabaptists in Switzerland and Italy, Calvin was still a student in Paris? Maybe you mean Zwingli?

Calvin was also not involved in the massacres of revolting German peasants in the 1620s, or of the apocalyptic Anabaptists after the recapture of Munster in the 1630s. All that happened before he'd ever set foot in Geneva. It was mostly down to Lutherans and Catholics, allied for a change.

I'm no expert but as far as I can remember, when he did get into a position of influence in Geneva, Calvin wanted to exile Anabaptists, not execute them. But I'm open to correction.

I'm not saying that Calvin disapproved of executing heretics (though he seems to have been rather less in favour of it than most religious leaders of the time), or that he never asssented to the execution of a heretic (because we know he did at least once) but he didn't pick on Anabaptists in particular.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
John Calvin, showing his grimly poetic side, made drowning the sentence for anyone refusing to recant Anabaptism.
I wonder how come he managed that, when at the time they started drowning Anabaptists in Switzerland and Italy, Calvin was still a student in Paris? Maybe you mean Zwingli?

Calvin was also not involved in the massacres of revolting German peasants in the 1620s, or of the apocalyptic Anabaptists after the recapture of Munster in the 1630s. All that happened before he'd ever set foot in Geneva. It was mostly down to Lutherans and Catholics, allied for a change.

I'm no expert but as far as I can remember, when he did get into a position of influence in Geneva, Calvin wanted to exile Anabaptists, not execute them. But I'm open to correction.

I'm not saying that Calvin disapproved of executing heretics (though he seems to have been rather less in favour of it than most religious leaders of the time), or that he never asssented to the execution of a heretic (because we know he did at least once) but he didn't pick on Anabaptists in particular.

Yes, I did mean Zwingli. The one that died taking up the sword against unbelievers.

Sorry.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?
Because it's a command of Our Lord.

Our Lord did not in fact say "only baptize when they reach the age of accountability." He did say "baptize all nations." I imagine children would fall under "all nations."

Yes. It's often piously said that the Church must pay attention to children because they are the Church of tomorrow, but that ignores the fact that they are an actual, lively, complete part of the Church of today.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

A 16-year old mother with child in arms summons up her courage to knock on the door of the imposing and off-putting vicarage. The vicar opens the door, beams when he sees the visitors and invites them in. 'What can I do for you?' The girl timidly stutters, 'I'd like him done.' 'Wonderful,' the priest says. 'what makes you come here to ask that?' 'Me mum says if I don't get him done we're never going to win at bingo.' 'Right - we can't have that! Let's see when we can arrange the christening then.' So the young woman went off basking in the warmth of her welcome and from then on always thinking of the church, and God, as being on her side and somewhere to turn in times of need.

The bishop said it's all about our 'yes' to God. Sometimes that is a big 'yes', like Mary's 'yes'. But often it starts off very small, like the young girl's, but with encouragement and nurture it can grow.

Where the logic of the anecdote fails is when the requested service does not do the job. Take a parallel situation.

A hobbyist sends his son to pick up timber for a picnic table. Sonny boy arrives at the timber yard and says, "We need a load of 2x2s for a picnictable. So give me the stuff so that me and my dad can finally get this thing done."

The store staff know that 2x2s will never a picnic table make, but they are Friendly Al's Timber Supply, so they can't say, "No", they have a reputation to maintain. They send the requested material.

Now Father sets off to pick up the Book, and to his chagrin finds out that, according to the Book, 2x2s will never a picnic table make, and he's just wasted a whole passel of time and effort and cash. All avoidable if the "experts" had realised that expertise was the requiredment, and not "friendliness".

Right materials for the wrong job, wrong materials for the right job, both don't work.

There's a danger of the family being put off by the denial of service and misunderstanding the explanation given, but it's offset by the calamitous result of not being saved by getting the wrong service.

And appealing to practice is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Didn't work with the flat earthers, won't work with salvation by baptism...

[ 09. July 2012, 18:26: Message edited by: footwasher ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?
Because it's a command of Our Lord.

Our Lord did not in fact say "only baptize when they reach the age of accountability." He did say "baptize all nations." I imagine children would fall under "all nations."
Yes. It's often piously said that the Church must pay attention to children because they are the Church of tomorrow, but that ignores the fact that they are an actual, lively, complete part of the Church of today.

One thing that is a bit of a debate among my friends is offering communion to children. Part of the rationale for allowing children to receive is the fact that they are baptized and thus, full members of the Church and should be included in the Eucharistic feast.

Do anabaptists allow children to receive communion if they are not baptized?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?
Because it's a command of Our Lord.

Our Lord did not in fact say "only baptize when they reach the age of accountability." He did say "baptize all nations." I imagine children would fall under "all nations."
Yes. It's often piously said that the Church must pay attention to children because they are the Church of tomorrow, but that ignores the fact that they are an actual, lively, complete part of the Church of today.

Yes, but unfortunately the Western church has become so fixated on providing ministry for children that the parents have become disempowered in teaching the faith to their children themselves. And the record of the church in doing this, with the horrendously high drop out rate of church kids when they hit teenage years makes me convinced we've got it badly wrong. YMMV.

Of course the western tradition of separating first communion from baptism - in contrast to the Orthodox practice where children are communicated from the time they are baptised - points to a recognition that there is something to happen before the child is fully 'an actual, lively, complete part of the Church of today'. Evangelicals understand that a matter of 'coming to faith'. What do Catholics label that process - or should every child that's been baptised be confirmed regardless of their faith or lack of it?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Anglican Brat:

quote:
Do anabaptists allow children to receive communion if they are not baptized?

Probably not, since they put a high value on personal understanding and acceptance of the traditional rites of the church. But then, since the Lord's Supper, in their view, is a matter of symbolism and memorial and not actual substance, not receiving would not be a great loss in any case.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Anglican Brat:
quote:
Do anabaptists allow children to receive communion if they are not baptized?
Probably not, since they put a high value on personal understanding and acceptance of the traditional rites of the church. But then, since the Lord's Supper, in their view, is a matter of symbolism and memorial and not actual substance, not receiving would not be a great loss in any case.

As a Baptist Pastor I'd allow a child/young person to take Communion who "loves the Lord Jesus" and if the parent felt it was appropriate. There's no condition of being Baptised in order to take Communion in the church I serve at or most other Baptist Churches.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Baptism with water or in water does not effect [SIC] salvation in any sense whatsoever.

1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21.

Baptism now saves you.

[brick wall]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?

Or, are you with God in condemning my children to a lost eternity?

I think you need to put up on this one!
1. I don't subscribe to the low-church "Only the strictly necessary is permissible" doctrine.

2 Baptism is God's means of grace, which confers forgiveness of sins and grafts one into the Body of Christ. If you think that is the sort of thing your children should (or can, at their age) have, then have them baptized.

1. Nor do I but what relevance does that have here?

2.So the unbaptised believer is not grafted into the body of Christ? (That is, if I am converted today but not baptised immediately). Do you believe such will be seperated from God, go to hell? Please answer the question - yes or no!

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
Baptism with water or in water does not effect [SIC] salvation in any sense whatsoever.
1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21.

Baptism now saves you.

So does childbirth (if you're a woman).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
Baptism with water or in water does not effect [SIC] salvation in any sense whatsoever.
1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21.

Baptism now saves you.

So does childbirth (if you're a woman).

The baptism spoken of in 1 Peter 3:21 is spoken of quite clearly as symbolic of our salvation. Ie going under the water 9hence total immersion) represents death and resurrection as with Christ

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
1. Nor do I but what relevance does that have here?

You seemed to make the argument that baptism was pointless if it didn't mean going unbaptized necessarily meant one went to hell. Which is functionally the same thing as "If it's not necessary, then don't do it."

quote:
2.So the unbaptised believer is not grafted into the body of Christ? (That is, if I am converted today but not baptised immediately). Do you believe such will be seperated from God, go to hell? Please answer the question - yes or no!

I have no particular inclination to answer questions that the Holy Scriptures leave unanswered.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Anglican Brat:
quote:
Do anabaptists allow children to receive communion if they are not baptized?
Probably not, since they put a high value on personal understanding and acceptance of the traditional rites of the church. But then, since the Lord's Supper, in their view, is a matter of symbolism and memorial and not actual substance, not receiving would not be a great loss in any case.
As a Baptist Pastor I'd allow a child/young person to take Communion who "loves the Lord Jesus" and if the parent felt it was appropriate. There's no condition of being Baptised in order to take Communion in the church I serve at or most other Baptist Churches.

Same with us too - it's a choice on the parents behalf. In any event, how do those who administer communion in the CofE/Cathloic "know" if someone has been baptised or not?

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
All true. But the solution to the woman's confusion is not a the sacrament of baptism for her baby.
Not the solution to her confusion, but a good in itself despite said confusion. Baptism is efficacious toward salvation regardless of the worthiness of recipient and, indeed, of that of the minister (would should come as some consolation to the members of your flock).
Baptism with water or in water does not effect salvation in any sense whatsoever.

So what did St. Paul mean when he said the following? “He saved us, not because of works of rightenousness which we have done, but according to his mercy, through washing of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit.” (Tit 3:5)

This might of course be interpreted metaphorically, but one should always consider what the literal meanings of the words used are. The greek word that I have translated ‘washing,’ can mean ‘washing,’ ‘washing place,’ ‘water.’ Now, the literal meaning of washing is something one does in water. It could be read metaphorically, but a metaphorical reading needs to be justified when a literal reading is equally possible.

And I must say that your comment is a bit like saying that since you are builing the house, the hammer does not effect the building process in any sense whatsoever. Of course it does, but as a means, a tool. Of course God could have not instituted baptism, he is onmipotent and he is spirit. But he did. And we aren’t ‘spiritual,’ we are flesh and bones.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
1. Nor do I but what relevance does that have here?
You seemed to make the argument that baptism was pointless if it didn't mean going unbaptized necessarily meant one went to hell. Which is functionally the same thing as "If it's not necessary, then don't do it."

quote:
2.So the unbaptised believer is not grafted into the body of Christ? (That is, if I am converted today but not baptised immediately). Do you believe such will be seperated from God, go to hell? Please answer the question - yes or no!
I have no particular inclination to answer questions that the Holy Scriptures leave unanswered.

I'll take that as a yes then.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I'll take that as a yes then.

Then you are either consciously misinterpreting me, or unconsciously misinterpreting me. Are you malicious or illiterate?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I'll take that as a yes then.
Then you are either consciously misinterpreting me, or unconsciously misinterpreting me. Are you malicious or illiterate?

Neither: I just like to have an answer to a question. If you're not prepared to give one, that's but I've assumed the worst in the absence of a yea or nay.

If the bible talks about the place of the saved and baptised as you put it, then a posteriori at least you must have an answer for the "saved but nor baptised."

[ 09. July 2012, 22:38: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Faith is a grace.
Undoubtedly, but that is not what is referred to:

quote:
Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace?
Answer. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness: for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.
BCP 1662, Catechism
Sorry, Daron, but Anglican tradition is avowedly not on your side here.
I do not believe in baptismal regeneration. I believe that all of the things mentioned the quote above are graces wrought sovereignly by the Holy Spirit. I also believe that baptism is an outward and visible sign of those graces. I do not accept that baptism in water effects what it signifies.

In this respect, I do not accept Anglican tradition as biblically tenable and consequently believe that it needs to be reformed.

Then why are you a priest in the CofE? If I was visiting a parish in the CofE, I would expect that the priest actually believed what he was ordained to uphold.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are so sure of your position, Daron, then write a letter informing your bishop of your refusal to baptize infants.
Can you answer my question above about the destination of the condemned in Mark 16:16? I'm interested - my children aren't baptised! Do they suffer because of my beliefs?
The Bible says that baptism is God's means of salvation.
No Zach. No, it really doesn't say that at all. I know you want it to say that, but it doesn't. It just doesn't.
Christ is the means of salvation

No, he is the saviour.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Neither: I just like to have an answer to a question. If you're not prepared to give one, that's but I've assumed the worst in the absence of a yea or nay.

If the bible talks about the place of the saved and baptised as you put it, then a posteriori at least you must have an answer for the "saved but nor baptised."

Do you even know what a posteriori mean?

Regardless, I will stand up for what I actually said, but I can't be bothered to stand up for what I didn't say.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So you've told your bishop that you have no intention of following the canons of the Church of England then?
Yoiu still haven't told me what's going to happen to unbaptised children who go to church and adults who believe and are unbaptised. I don't like to assume I know what you think but I'd really like to know!
I already said all I will. The Bible says that baptism is God's means of salvation, but does not say that those who are unbaptized are necessarily damned for it.
Ok then why bother to baptise?

Are you then saying that if there is a possibility that God might save you anyway, you shouldn’t bother becoming a Christian?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Then why are you a priest in the CofE? If I was visiting a parish in the CofE, I would expect that the priest actually believed what he was ordained to uphold.

As has long been demonstrated by the unwillingness of bishops to act against priests who say the most outrageous things, the CofE is a broad church. On the whole this is an issue where I would regard its breadth as less harmful than a lot of others.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So does childbirth (if you're a woman).
The baptism spoken of in 1 Peter 3:21 is spoken of quite clearly as symbolic of our salvation. Ie going under the water 9hence total immersion) represents death and resurrection as with Christ

I don't disagree. My point is that according to the bible, lots of things save us. Baptism is one of them.

Saying that Baptism saves us says nothing about not-baptism. It doesn't follow from "baptism saves us" that not getting baptised condemns us, especially given the fact that the bible says that other things save us too.

There has been a fairly anti-"anabaptist" sentiment on this thread so far. I have sympathy with both positions, but I'm glad my parents didn't get me baptised as a baby and let me make my own mind up.

In terms of the discussion, there is one thing which is so obvious that I think people are forgetting it, and that is that, to someone who believes in believer's baptism, a baptism of a baby is no baptism at all. This shouldn't need saying, but some of the arguments on this thread have begun with the assumption that child-baptism is valid, and argued from that starting point. But that's totally circular, because an advocate of believer's baptism starts from an entirely different premise.

So saying that, according to scripture, a child is saved because they've been 'baptised', assumes that the baptism was valid in the first place. But someone who doesn't hold that premise isn't even asking the question of whether the 'baptism' saved the child in the first place.

Given our recent discussion on the Eucharist, it seems to me that the way that a Baptist approaches baptism is similar to the way a traditionalist approaches communion.

I can get all upset that lots of people think that the way that my church does communion doesn't 'count', but that doesn't really make a difference. That's their theology of the Eucharist, and though I can debate it (and readily have), they have to be true to it.

Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox can get all upset about the fact that Baptists (and others) don't think that baptising babies 'counts', but that doesn't really make a difference. Their theology says that baptism has to be accompanied by a confession of faith (by the person getting baptised). We can all debate that too, but a baptist has to be true to it.

Where that leaves people who disagree with the official teaching of their church is difficult. On the one hand, peoples' theology comes out of their conscience. You can't just decide to change what you believe. To say that someone should just join another church that teaches what they believe on this one issue is too simplistic. What if they don't agree with other doctrines of that church? Taken to its full extent, that just leaves us each in a church of one.

I think the ideal is that we try to remain united as Church despite variation in doctrine, and perhaps that's why the guy mentioned in the OP is still an Anglican minister. It's hard though, because people often pick one theology as THE theology that defines us, draw a line in the sand, and then we end up having to choose sides and arrive at church splits and denominations. There's no easy answer - at what point does our different theology mean that division is inevitable? I don't know, but I do think that pointing at a brother and saying "They're wrong!" and making that one theological issue more important than the faith that binds us together is not the way we should go (and that applies to both 'sides').

In the (so far) 11 pages of discussion on the 'online sacraments' thread, there is one post that stood out for me as central, and I think it is pertinent to this thread too:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have Jesus Christ at the very center of my belief. I'm willing to bet that is true of virtually everybody on this thread who calls himself/herself a Christian.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Daron, this is clearly Kerygmania, but what say you to 1 Peter 3:21. In the NRSV translation at least this refers to the salvific quality of baptism.

[Same disclaimer about koin Greek...]

OK, I'll bite and at least play Devil's Advocate on this one: proponents of baptismal regeneration cite the first half of this verse whilst trying to ignore the second: "...not[by] the removal of bodily dirt but [by] the pledge of a good conscience towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (italics mine). The "pledge of the good conscience" is dependent upon repentance.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
to someone who believes in believer's baptism, a baptism of a baby is no baptism at all.

That depends on the person who believes in believer's baptism! I was baptised as a baby and later confirmed, both in the CofE. Until recently I was in membership at a Baptist Church. I was allowed into membership (and into the diaconate) on the basis of my infant baptism and subsequent confirmation, which included a profession of faith. The view of my infant baptism was that it was valid but irregular. Of course, a more closed Baptist fellowship would have taken a very different view.

quote:
OK, I'll bite

I only really threw that passage in there as Daron was coming across so strongly with his position, apparently oblivious that he was quite prepared to ignore, or simply truck over, any biblical passages which might challenge his position. He's gone now...

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Daron, this is clearly Kerygmania, but what say you to 1 Peter 3:21. In the NRSV translation at least this refers to the salvific quality of baptism.

[Same disclaimer about koin Greek...]
OK, I'll bite and at least play Devil's Advocate on this one: proponents of baptismal regeneration cite the first half of this verse whilst trying to ignore the second: "...not[by] the removal of bodily dirt but [by] the pledge of a good conscience towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (italics mine). The "pledge of the good conscience" is dependent upon repentance.

You seem to assume that proponents of baptismal regeneration and/or children’s baptism doesn’t care about the latter part. But that is not true at all. We haven’t denied that faith is also essential, we just deny that (at least in the case of infants, children and some mentally challenged persons) express faith is needed to get the sacrament of baptism. The Bible doesn’t say what must come first. And it’s interesting to note that in Judaism, (male) children are circumsized as (eight days old) infants. They are then brought up, and will later take a stand (or not). Adult converts to judaism, however, first have to ‘take a stand,’ and will then (if they are male, that is) be circumsized. St. Paul did indeed liken baptism to circumcision, and a major difference is that it’s no longer male-specific.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

St Paul also states that those who live like the uncircumcised lose the benefits of circumcision, which is, in the main, membership of God's community of set apart people, set apart for a purpose.

Romans 2
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

A fairly typical evo view of I Pet 3:21 can be found in Kistemaker, Simon J. ; Hendriksen, William: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 16), S. 147:

quote:
What does Peter mean when he introduces the term symbol? Are the waters of the flood the original and is baptism a symbol of the flood? No, not really. We should not make any comparison between something great (the flood waters) and something small (the water of baptism), because Peter is only indicating likeness or correspondence.72 The text allows for a resemblance between the flood and baptism. That is, as the flood waters cleansed the earth of man’s wickedness, so the water of baptism indicates man’s cleansing from sin. As the flood separated Noah and his family from the wicked world of their day, so baptism separates believers from the evil world of our day. Baptism, then, is the counterpart of the flood.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The Bible doesn’t say what must come first. And it’s interesting to note that in Judaism, (male) children are circumsized as (eight days old) infants. They are then brought up, and will later take a stand (or not). Adult converts to judaism, however, first have to ‘take a stand,’ and will then (if they are male, that is) be circumsized.

Ummh, those points are moot.

The Bible does not say what must come first, that is true, but every single instance of baptism in Acts describes faith preceding baptism.

Circumcision is an interesting issue since that what was so radical about John the Baptist. Baptism wasn't new for Jews, but baptising circumcised Jews was. He had adult Jews, who had been circumcised, 'make a stand' before baptising them.

[None of this categorically proves anything, but it does put a very different spin on things to what you are claiming. As I said, the points are moot.]

[ 13. July 2012, 03:55: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

And I think it would be unwise to hang so much on Col 2:11-12 (to which I presume you (K-Mann) allude) as demonstrative that New Covenant Baptism corresponds to Old Covenant circumcision. That's only one possible interpretation of that passage, and Paul himself does not expressly make that connection. It's tenuous at best so I would be very wary of saying that baptism is some kind of rite of initiation for infants under the New Covenant as circumcision was under the Old, at least based on this passage alone.

There's also the evidence cited by JohnnyS that every instance of baptism in the NT follows rather than precedes faith/ repentance, plus there is no evidence of infants being baptised, save for the possible inferential mention of the Philippian jailer's 'household'.

[ 13. July 2012, 08:33: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

I'm a bit late to this discussion, as I was having a quick search for threads on infant baptism so we know what we're letting Baby Spouse in for.

I wonder if the argument would be any different if the situation was along the lines of:

Southern Baptist grandmother has been taking her grandson, aged 8, to church for a few weeks. Grandfather is ill. Grandmother tells grandson we all have to pray and believe and Grandpa will be well, and grandson picks up not much more than "if you believe you get baptised and if you believe Grandpa will get better". I know that this age (around the Catholic First Communion age, rather than around the Confirmation age) is fairly common for baptism in some traditions.

Grandson says "I need to be baptised, Grandma" and goes forward for an altar call and Grandma says "Halleluja!" (sorry for cliches).

This is a child who has said, in their own words, that they are ready to be baptised and that they believe. Can they really understand what this means at this age?

Would the minister be justified (under the "grandparents don't know what baptism or belief is really about" test) in baptising this child, who has only been to church about 3 times and (let's say for the sake of argument) has not been exposed to any explanation of Christianity before this and is really very young (younger than would be normal for an independent expression of belief in many Christian traditions and many other religions, but as I say this is a common age for baptism in some traditions).

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't think anybody really understands what they're letting themselves in for with baptism, at any age. But as it's a gift of God, that doesn't really matter. The thing that concerns me about your scenario is that the whole "honor your parents" thing is left out of it. We are hesitant to baptize children whose parents oppose it except in emergency, because of the conflict that sets up.

Other than that angle, though, I'm okay with baptizing anybody at any age, though if there is time (which there may not be), an older person really ought to be told the basics of Jesus and the faith first. But if incapable for age or health reasons, just go ahead and baptize. There is nothing to suggest that baptism is in any way harmful, even if misunderstood; and as Peter explained just before helping to baptize what? 3000 people, "The promise is for you [i]and your children,[i] for all whom the Lord will call." (Acts 2 I believe, and the Greek word for children is the one commonly used of infants, teknia--though older ones can be included as well)

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"The promise is for you and your children, for all whom the Lord will call." (Acts 2 I believe, and the Greek word for children is the one commonly used of infants, teknia--though older ones can be included as well)

Teknia can be used to describe adults in the NT too.

Most commentators (of both sides of the debate as far as I'm aware) read v 39 as referring to subsequent generations, regardless of age.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Can be, but by metaphor (as in 1 John's "Little children"). All I can say is that if actual children are specifically excluded from baptism, then Peter chose a MOST misleading term to use in this context. Bad boy, Peter.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Can be, but by metaphor (as in 1 John's "Little children").

Right, as many paedobaptists also read this passage. Even someone like John Stott would see the emphasis in this passage being on a promise to subsequent generations. They would see it as including young children, sure, but not being about children.

(Also Abraham uses this term to the rich man in Jesus' parable in Luke 16. There the metaphor of spiritual child is stretched much further over many more generations.)

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
All I can say is that if actual children are specifically excluded from baptism, then Peter chose a MOST misleading term to use in this context. Bad boy, Peter.

But that is a circular argument.

I agree that the verse cannot possibly be used to exclude children from baptism. However, my point is that it isn't a proof-text for either side.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0