|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Validity of baptism from other churches?
|
Advocatus Diaboli
Ship's cannon
# 5172
|
Posted
Just how widespread is the practice of accepting the baptism of another denomination? A friend of mine is planning to be baptised in an evangelical church on Tuesday (full immersion) but is worried that what she calls a 'sprinkling' as an infant in a Methodist church means that either:
a) She's been baptised once, and needn't be baptised again, or
b) She's been baptised once, and shouldn't/can't be baptised again.
It doesn't help that her family can't remember ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) and don't seem to mind ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) that she might have been baptised as a child. My position is that once baptised, always baptised - re-baptism is not only unnecessary, but pretty theologically suspect!
I told her to talk to the pastor at her present church to find out his position on the matter, but it would be useful to find out how common it is for churches to recognise each other's initiation. I can't believe that the RCCh would go out on a limb on this, so my guess is that it is pretty normal. (Sorry I can't be more specific on the church involved, I don't have details.)
All this caused by the fact that a third church (in Japan, where she's working on an exchange programme) say that she can't receive communion without baptism. She's determined to be baptised in her home church while she's home for a few weeks, so she can 'fit in' when she gets back to Japan. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) Grr.
[edited thread title]
[ 23. April 2005, 05:53: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
Shipmate formerly known as lazystudent
The only way of catching a train, I have discovered, is to miss the train before. (G.K.C.)
Posts: 576 | From: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
It seems that our positions are similar.
Baptism is just that. It configures the human person to Christ. Rebaptism is not possible.
This is one of those things that, oddly enough, came up in conversation with a taxi driver once. A few years ago, his wife gave birth to their dughter, who was not expected to live. An emergency baptism was done at the hospital. Some months later, they wasnter her to be baptise in church, and the parish priest explained that this was not possible.
The taxi-driver seemed rather annoyed at this and made the priest out to be rather insensitive for not refuing to do this. I pointed out why this was not the case and that Baptism is once, only once, and once for all and that to 'repeat' the action would be to imply that the baptism of his daughter in hospital was not a real baptism, and would make a mockery of the Sacrament.
I don't know how sensitive or insensitive the priest was about this, but the taxi-driver clearly felt strongly about this. The Church of England has a service of thanksgiving for the gift of a child, for just this type of scenario, and I don't know if this was offered as an alternative.
As an aside, it struck me as odd that a family that requested emergency baptism in hospital upon learning of their daughter's imminent death would then ask for a re-bapsitm. The two ideas usually come with totally opposite theological perspectives.
The exception I would make would be in the case of conditional Baptism. If there is some doubt as to whether the priest used water, or whether the candidate was indeed baptised 'in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit', then a conditional Baptism is necessary. As none of your friend's family can actually remember whether or not this happened, a conditional baptism is probably the safer option.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
Hostly Mobcap ON
I think this thread will be much happier up in Purgatory.
Hostly Mobcap OFF
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
The issue doesn't seem to be about one church accepting another church's baptism as valid. Raither its about accepting infant baptism as valid. A church that refused to accept a baptism as valid simply becuase it took place in another church would be deeply wrong. However not accepting infant baptism is a very different and justifable difference of theology. I am however concerned that your friend is getting baptised without understanding exactly why her infant baptism is not accepted as valid. I would expect any church to explain this as part of making sure a candidate understands the signifance and meaning of their baptism.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli
Ship's cannon
# 5172
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
I am however concerned that your friend is getting baptised without understanding exactly why her infant baptism is not accepted as valid. I would expect any church to explain this as part of making sure a candidate understands the signifance and meaning of their baptism.
Complicated by the fact that the church she is trying to 'join' is not the one in which she is seeking baptism. The pastor in her home church seems quite happy to baptise her regardless, but the question is whether it is The Right Thing To Do.
--------------------
Shipmate formerly known as lazystudent
The only way of catching a train, I have discovered, is to miss the train before. (G.K.C.)
Posts: 576 | From: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lazystudent:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
I am however concerned that your friend is getting baptised without understanding exactly why her infant baptism is not accepted as valid. I would expect any church to explain this as part of making sure a candidate understands the signifance and meaning of their baptism.
Complicated by the fact that the church she is trying to 'join' is not the one in which she is seeking baptism.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Why?
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli
Ship's cannon
# 5172
|
Posted
She's on a two year exchange programme in Japan, and is finding it difficult that her local church there won't allow her to receive communion because she is not baptised (or so she thought). Being back in Wales for a few weeks visiting her family, she decided that it would be best to be baptised when at home rather than abroad where she doesn't really know many people. Only when she had arranged it with the pastor did her mother mention that she had been 'sprinkled' as a baby, but that of course it didn't count as real baptism so it wasn't important. Cue phone call to Lazystudent, "wish-I-was-better-but-slowly-getting-there" RC, for advice!
Sorry, that's a bit longwinded, but I hope it makes sense (unlike most things I say).
[Edited to make slightly more sense]
[ 20. March 2005, 17:09: Message edited by: lazystudent ]
--------------------
Shipmate formerly known as lazystudent
The only way of catching a train, I have discovered, is to miss the train before. (G.K.C.)
Posts: 576 | From: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Oh hush. I've found your posts very sensible. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thanks for the clarification. I suppose I can only join you in prayer for her on this journey.
I know that personally, I would have to give long, hard thought about joining any church that implied that all of my Christian life prior to that point was based on an invalid baptism.
I started a thread on Baptism here many moons ago, and the differeing views about this came up.
We have to accept that there are some churches out there that perform rites similar to those of baptism, but do not see it as a Sacrament.
She has been baptised already, and so what she is planning on doing can do no harm, but is not essential and really implies something about her original baptism that she may not completely realise.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
If she was "sprinkled" in a Methodist church as an infant, that would count as baptized for the RCC (though they would want a copy of a baptismal certificate or some other documentation if she were seeking to be confirmed as RC).
What is the denomination of the Japanese church? If it's not RC, why is she asking for advice from an RC perspective? And if the Japanese church is RC, just getting dunked by an evangelical church in the UK isn't going to be enough to allow her to partake of the Eucharist.
None of my business, of course, but you should probably counsel her to get her head straight about what she is doing and why!
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli
Ship's cannon
# 5172
|
Posted
No, no, no - it's not an RC church in Japan (although she did once stumble into one by accident, and was suitably mortified). I think it's pretty similar to her church at home. The reason I added the fact that I'm RC is because I know the RCCh accepts baptisms from left, right and centre (which makes me all fuzzy inside - I think it's marvellous, and completely correct) but don't know who else does. That, and I'm not familiar with evangelical practice and am in need of heducashun!
[P.S. Counselling has begun...]
[ 20. March 2005, 17:22: Message edited by: lazystudent ]
--------------------
Shipmate formerly known as lazystudent
The only way of catching a train, I have discovered, is to miss the train before. (G.K.C.)
Posts: 576 | From: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
As a Methodist, of course, I think that "sprinkling" in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is a valid baptism and I would say that one cannot be re-baptised. Any denomination that baptises babies (e.g. Anglican, URC) would hold that position. Some Baptists (but not necessarily all because each church will decide its own policy) may express a strong preference for believer's baptism; I don't know if any Baptist churches view infant baptism as invalid, though.
If a person genuinely does not know whether or not they have been baptised, then most churches have a form of conditional baptism where the person doing the baptising says "If you have not been baptised before, I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". However, your friend now seems to know that she was baptised and I believe that almost all Christian churches would recognise her baptism.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli
Ship's cannon
# 5172
|
Posted
Thank you, Seeker. Has anyone found an exception to this?
--------------------
Shipmate formerly known as lazystudent
The only way of catching a train, I have discovered, is to miss the train before. (G.K.C.)
Posts: 576 | From: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Well many Evangelicals do not see Baptism as a Sacrament: not all, mind you. They do not see it as conferring sacramental grace in and of itself, but see it as being (at least in part), dependent on the understanding and will of the person receiving Baptism, hence the absence of recognition of the Baptism of those done as children. (I don't know where this leaves those with severe learning difficulties - but that discussion isn't the intention of your thread). I believe that this is referred to as 'believer's baptism'.
The Catholic perspective, that I, and from your posts and profile, I believe you, hold to, is that it IS a sacrament, and a lack of human understanding cannot invalidate it. If God's grace were reliant on human understanding of that grace, then we'd be wasting our time even bothering.
In churches of the former view, baptism is seen as a rite of passage - a public declaration of one person's belief in, and submission to the Faith (often the faith as that particular church has interpreted it, hence the business of "rebaptism").
A former parish priest of mine once told me about an elderly lady in his former parish, who was, to some degree reliant on her children for financial support. She had brought them all up within the Anglican Church, but they had since all gone to a pentecostal church and been "rebaptised". They had insisted that she also ought to follow them and that they would only continue to support her if she were baptised in this church, which she didn't blieve was possible. You can imagine the pain that this caused her. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
It really depends on what sort of church your friend is attending in Japan. If they were real sticklers for believer's baptism, then they would not accept an infant baptism. As I understand it (and I'm open to correction from those actually in the non-sacramental tradition), baptism is seen as an act of obedience to a biblical command; a baby obviously is not in a position to "obey" God - hence the idea of "age of accountability" in these traditions.
The reason I was couching my terminology is that I do know Baptists who are willing to accept those who have been baptised as babies, although they usually do want to have at least a public testimony of personal commitment to Christ. It seems to me logical that there must be people who believe in believer's baptism who simply will not accept infant baptism.
If your friend is attending an Anglican church in Japan (you said "pretty much like her church at home, which I took to be Anglican), they would certainly recognise a Methodist infant baptism. The only baptisms that paedo-baptist mainstream Christian denominations do not accept are the baptisms of non-trinitarian denominations (e.g. "Mormons").
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli
Ship's cannon
# 5172
|
Posted
I guess the up-shot of this is to advise her to go ahead with the baptism on Tuesday, and make sure she gets it in writing! (A confirmation of the baptism, that is, not the baptism itself - but hang on, "confirmation of baptism"??? Oh dear. Time for another drink, methinks!)
Nah, neither her home nor Japanese churches are of the Anglican persuasion. More than that I do not know!
[edited to add reply to Seeker's post]
[ 20. March 2005, 17:46: Message edited by: lazystudent ]
--------------------
Shipmate formerly known as lazystudent
The only way of catching a train, I have discovered, is to miss the train before. (G.K.C.)
Posts: 576 | From: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Hmmmm....it's not unusual for a "believer's baptism" church to not accept for communion anyone who professes belief in Christ. Not that my denomination does this anymore, but it's not unusual.
We could get into the whole infant/"believer's" thingie, but there are a couple of good threads in limbo on infant baptism.
[ 20. March 2005, 18:25: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli
Ship's cannon
# 5172
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Hmmmm....it's not unusual for a "believer's baptism" church to not accept for communion anyone who professes belief in Christ.
All those "nots" make it read like you're saying some churches don't accept anyone for communion, and I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean!
--------------------
Shipmate formerly known as lazystudent
The only way of catching a train, I have discovered, is to miss the train before. (G.K.C.)
Posts: 576 | From: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
I think that Og's intended meaning may be clarified by the insertion of 'just', between 'communion' and 'anyone'.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I accept the baptism of 'other' 'denominations' because one cannot be baptised into a denomination, only into the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. As long as there's water, invocation of the Trinity and the intention to do what Christ intended, that's good enough for me.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli
Ship's cannon
# 5172
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
I think that Og's intended meaning may be clarified by the insertion of 'just', between 'communion' and 'anyone'.
BTF - still jars a bit with my logical leanings! Can be read to mean something like "In believers' baptism churches, the only people who cannot receive communion are those who profess belief in Christ"!!!
But yes, point taken.
--------------------
Shipmate formerly known as lazystudent
The only way of catching a train, I have discovered, is to miss the train before. (G.K.C.)
Posts: 576 | From: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
Well many Evangelicals do not see Baptism as a Sacrament: not all, mind you.
I think anyone who uses the word 'sacrament' at all will admit that baptism is one of them. The standard reformed account is of two 'gospel' sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
But surely if anybody views the efficacy of Baptism to be dependent on belief and understanding of the person receiving baptism, then that person does not believe that it is a Sacrament, because this is giving to Baptism attributes that Sacraments do not have.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
I think that Og's intended meaning may be clarified by the insertion of 'just', between 'communion' and 'anyone'.
Since we're second-guessing Og while waiting for him to show up and clarify what he meant to type:
I read the sentence as having an extra 'not', and thus corrected to:
"...it's not unusual for a "believer's baptism" church to accept for communion anyone who professes belief in Christ."
I base this on the believer's baptism church where I've been playing handbells for over a decade. Their invitation to communion goes something like "We invite you to join us in communion if you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savoir; even if at this very moment you find that your heart is opened to him...". Communion (in the pews) is offered to all and your acceptance is a matter of your own conscience and heart.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I suspect that in some - not all, or even maybe most - evangelical circles, sacramental language is essentially losing all its force, and that baptism and communion are really in the category of "things we do - among many other things - in church". I don't mean that as a polemical statement, and I suspect that not a few evangelicals would broadly agree with this assessment. And it's not meant to deny that a large number of evangelicals do seem to think in terms of recognizable 'sacraments'.
But I do think that the sort of tendency I'm describing is there and increasing. In my own denomination (C of S) I'd locate it among 20-30-somethings whose attachment to their church is more emotional than theological, and who are really quite impatient of theological thought.
I have no idea where the taxi-driver Back-to-Front is describing above was coming from in terms of tradition, and he sounds a good bit older than 20-something, but I suspect that he's typical of the sort of thinking that basically responds emotionally to issues like this, and would not only see nothing wrong with baptism being repeated every time a family moved to a new church, but would see nothing wrong with its repetition whenever the emotional need for it arose.
Again, I'm not knocking. But I have come across this kind of emotion-driven thinking a number of times, and it does seem to find it very hard to cope with a principled refusal - in fact with any rationally-articulated principled theological thought at all.
I'd guess that a lot of independent churches are probably coming to a point where this kind of thinking predominates, and that's why there is such an increase in the numbers of stories one hears along the lines of the OP.
I don't think it's so much rejection of the baptism of other churches - or an assertion of the superiority of "our church's" baptism. I think it's dictated by the emotional context of people's joining the new church, the need to express this in some way, and baptism's being the nearest thing to hand to do it with.
The trouble is, especially from the point of view of churches that practice infant baptism, that the context of grace is lost to view. Baptism becomes part of an emotional response to an essentially emotional new experience of faith. It becomes an emotional demand, and emotional demands in our society are only 'thwarted' by Bad People™. It's really hard to explain to people that what you want, and seem to feel you need, is something that will actually destroy something immensely precious that you've already got.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
But surely if anybody views the efficacy of Baptism to be dependent on belief and understanding of the person receiving baptism, then that person does not believe that it is a Sacrament, because this is giving to Baptism attributes that Sacraments do not have.
Can't one have a receptionist view of sacraments whilst retaining the language of sacramentality? I've certainly met Anglicans who think that communion's efficacy depends on interior disposition but would retain the language of sacramentalist.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
But surely if anybody views the efficacy of Baptism to be dependent on belief and understanding of the person receiving baptism, then that person does not believe that it is a Sacrament, because this is giving to Baptism attributes that Sacraments do not have.
Can't one have a receptionist view of sacraments whilst retaining the language of sacramentality? I've certainly met Anglicans who think that communion's efficacy depends on interior disposition but would retain the language of sacramentalist.
It is is possible, but I don't see why anybody would, for it would be using a word to refer to something that that word does not define.
I can see that people come to the arrival at this understanding of Baptism. I have had this understanding to explained to me and I certainly respect people's right to hold that belief, but I don't see why people who subscribe to that view would wish to use sacramental language to refer to it when they do not believe it to be a Sacrament.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
Perhaps because they see no distinction between 'sacrament' and 'Sacrament'?
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli
Ship's cannon
# 5172
|
Posted
Huh? There's a difference??? <confused>
--------------------
Shipmate formerly known as lazystudent
The only way of catching a train, I have discovered, is to miss the train before. (G.K.C.)
Posts: 576 | From: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
I never though that there was. I like to use an upper-case 'S' for Sacrament, but this is just a little oddity of mine and my use of this is hardly consistent.
jlg?
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
I've just met this thread. I wonder about a church in Japan... how much total acceptance of Christianity and Christians is there there? I don't know, but some of you may.
In Nepal, when there was great persecution of Christians, it was regarded as very important to be baptised before you had communion as you had both made a serious committment to God and were unlikely to pass on information to police about who attended communion. If you were not baptised, you actually left the church building before the communion, an extra service after the worship and teaching and prayer one was finished.
Is there any similarity to the church she attends in Japan?
I am one of those "anabaptists" who don't see any difference between a thanksgiving service or an infant baptism. I still think that the person involved as a baby has to make the decision to be baptised as their own committment.
I have never used the word "sacrament", either. We call them "ordinances".
But I do think that sometimes it's necessary to do whatever a particular denomination demands if you want to belong to it, or even to one particular church within it. I had to get confirmed to be a member of a CofE church!
[ 20. March 2005, 20:47: Message edited by: daisymay ]
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HopPik
Shipmate
# 8510
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lazystudent:
Just how widespread is the practice of accepting the baptism of another denomination?
Well my wife was baptised RC but was received into the Church of England without further baptism. Apparently the converse would have applied, although some RC priests apparently prefer to re-baptise. Actually she didn't even need to be received, but wanted it.
--------------------
Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and supposedly the pig enjoys it. G.B. Shaw
Posts: 2084 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli
Ship's cannon
# 5172
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HopPik:
Apparently the converse would have applied, although some RC priests apparently prefer to re-baptise.
They are on decidedly dodgy ground if they do. It has nothing to do with preference!!!
--------------------
Shipmate formerly known as lazystudent
The only way of catching a train, I have discovered, is to miss the train before. (G.K.C.)
Posts: 576 | From: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
All churches which recite the Nicene Creed containing the line "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" will accept the baptism from another Trinitarian church. These churches all baptise infants. Churches whice believe in a believers baptism only won't accept christenings or sprinklings as authentic baptism. My father was baptised in the C of E as a baby, but in his early 20's joined the Baptist Church after a Billy Graham experience. He had to submit to a full immersion baptism in order to receive communiuon as a Baptist.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
I can see that people come to the arrival at this understanding of Baptism. I have had this understanding to explained to me and I certainly respect people's right to hold that belief, but I don't see why people who subscribe to that view would wish to use sacramental language to refer to it when they do not believe it to be a Sacrament.
I think what is at issue here, as in both the Dontatist controversy and some reformation and post-reformation debates, is the very understanding of 'what makes a sacrament.' You, like me, hold a Catholic position on this. But others don't. In other words, 'sacrament' is an essentially contested concept - a bit like 'democracy' in the Cold War era, everyone said they were in favour of it (remember the German Democratic Republic?), they just meant completely different things by it! And yes, it is confusing.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Daisymay: quote:
I am one of those "anabaptists" who don't see any difference between a thanksgiving service or an infant baptism. I still think that the person involved as a baby has to make the decision to be baptised as their own committment.
Why is that, though? I respect, but to be honest don't understand, why the issue of personal response is so important to the act of Baptism. For me, it means everything that Baptism, being into the death of Christ, connects with the great objective saving act of God, done for me before ever I existed. And as a Minister, it means everything that I can say that to people who need to know about God's love and grace and forgiveness, but are not in a position, for all sorts of reasons, to make a response. Maybe it's the Calvinist in me (!!) but I really am terrified of anything which makes salvation dependent on what we do, rather than on what God does. I know that our response is vitally important - but surely it's a symptom of salvation, not a precondition. And that leaves open the hope that salvation can be symptomless...
It seems to me to be closely parallel to the distinction between conditional and unconditional love. Conditional love basically threatens us that unless we change... Unconditional love offers itself as the basis of change.
What really worries me about the sorts of attitudes to baptism that concern the OP is that they are all about our response. And because that's such an inadequate ground on which to build anything, the response needs to be repeated. And new spiritual experience throws that response into doubt, and it needs to be repeated again.
Having said that, it's obviously very important that people who think like me listen very carefully to people who do feel that the heart of baptism is an adult response. I always feel I'm missing something crucial in such arguments, which are advanced with such passion.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I don't think it's so much rejection of the baptism of other churches - or an assertion of the superiority of "our church's" baptism. I think it's dictated by the emotional context of people's joining the new church, the need to express this in some way, and baptism's being the nearest thing to hand to do it with.
The trouble is, especially from the point of view of churches that practice infant baptism, that the context of grace is lost to view. Baptism becomes part of an emotional response to an essentially emotional new experience of faith. It becomes an emotional demand, and emotional demands in our society are only 'thwarted' by Bad People™. It's really hard to explain to people that what you want, and seem to feel you need, is something that will actually destroy something immensely precious that you've already got.
That makes a lot of sense. I know people who feel that the fact they were baptised as infants deprived them of the chance of experiencing it. It didn't help that they were not really brought up within the church, so I can understand to an extent why they wanted something to mark their coming into faith, but it shows poor baptismal theology.
I particularly like the last bit. If you have to be rebaptised because you're not sure 'whether you believed enough' the first time around, then you can never be sure of your baptism. But God is faithful even if we aren't, and baptism is about what he has done for us!
On the OP, could the situation wrt the infant baptism be cleared up by asking at the Church where she would have been baptised had she been (who should have a cradle role or the like). Then at least she would know where she stands in that regard. If however, the Church in Japan is a believers' only baptism type, then that won't be enough for them. It's awkward, but that's the situation we're in. A friend and I aren't sure whether the other's baptised or not. She doesn't accept infant baptism so doesn't accept mine and she was baptised in the name of Jesus so I'm not sure what I make of it!
Carys
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Psyduck:
quote:
I respect, but to be honest don't understand, why the issue of personal response is so important to the act of Baptism. For me, it means everything that Baptism, being into the death of Christ, connects with the great objective saving act of God, done for me before ever I existed. And as a Minister, it means everything that I can say that to people who need to know about God's love and grace and forgiveness, but are not in a position, for all sorts of reasons, to make a response. Maybe it's the Calvinist in me (!!) but I really am terrified of anything which makes salvation dependent on what we do, rather than on what God does. I know that our response is vitally important - but surely it's a symptom of salvation, not a precondition.
I definitely don't think baptism is necessary for salvation. It's a public act of witness and recognition of our death and rebirth and the symbol of Jesus going through that. It's also a useful symbol of our sins having been washed away. Many people also associate it with the visitation of the Holy Spirit because that's what happened to Jesus when he was baptised - as someone who chose personally to do it, not a baby.
I agree totally that our salvation is provided by what God did, what God does, what God is, On the other hand, don't we accept the gift of grace?
Personal response being so important probably has much to do with our freedom of choice, our freewill. It's anti-authoritarian in a way.
quote:
What really worries me about the sorts of attitudes to baptism that concern the OP is that they are all about our response. And because that's such an inadequate ground on which to build anything, the response needs to be repeated. And new spiritual experience throws that response into doubt, and it needs to be repeated again.
Not really; most churches who expect baptism-by-choice would be fussy about letting people chose baptism. They often have interviews by senior members of the congregation and public testimony. They would regard the choice of dedicating one's life to God and accepting forgiveness as a one-off. It's a joint act by us and God, not just a fling by us. (Calvin would emphasis the impossibility of losing salvation.) And then the rest of one's life would be continuing to work out and work on the effects of the decision to become a Christian, not being baptised again and again.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Daisymay: quote:
Not really; most churches who expect baptism-by-choice would be fussy about letting people chose baptism.
Yes, that's a distinction I didn't make clearly enough. Most adult/faith-baptising churches probably do, and as I say I do recognize and respect the principle, even if I disagree with it on theological grounds.
I think, however, that the OP is probably about the increasing number of churches where rebaptism - and repudiation of previous baptism - is based on the emotional demands of members. (Again, it's not at all that emotional demands are to be disregarded or denied, just that the free play of immediate, unchecked and sometimes frankly disordered emotion can wreck some of the very things that would help - profoundly!)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
(Probably going to regret getting involved in another baptism thread ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) )
I think there are a number of issues here. Firstly, as someone (and I can’t now find the post) said, in general churches that practice believer’s baptism do not believe in rebaptism, just in a single baptism. What is at issue is the definition of baptism.
Secondly, I think that Psyduck has an important point about the emotional new for new beginnings. This seems to be a very natural part of life, but not necessarily one that’s helpful. However, in the case of the OP the question doesn’t seem to be arising from an emotional desire to be baptised but from doubt over whether the person concerned has been baptised (and I get the impression that no-one is quite sure of this).
Thirdly
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All churches which recite the Nicene Creed containing the line "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" will accept the baptism from another Trinitarian church. These churches all baptise infants.
Seems just incorrect to me. I have known a Baptist Church use the Nicene creed (and in the context of a service of Baptism). A quick Google throws up others, including this rather interesting case.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I'm in general agreement that an adult-only baptism place probably would require rebaptism and other places would not.
This is because they would, by and large, see baptism as effectual only where there was faith in the person being baptised. In the same way that if the participant in the Lord's Supper does not feed on Christ by faith they do not feed on Christ at all -- in the same way that Paul says that outwards circumcision is not really circumcision unless it is accompanied by the inward reality -- they would say that baptism requires faith in order for it to be really baptism.
Wow - I'm an Anglican and I've nearly convinced myself that's true as well as being what they believe.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I suspect that in some - not all, or even maybe most - evangelical circles, sacramental language is essentially losing all its force, and that baptism and communion are really in the category of "things we do - among many other things - in church". I don't mean that as a polemical statement, and I suspect that not a few evangelicals would broadly agree with this assessment. And it's not meant to deny that a large number of evangelicals do seem to think in terms of recognizable 'sacraments'.
Psyduck,
I can't help feeling that the above, and what followed was just a teensy wensy bit patronising. I hold a pretty non-sacramental view of both baptism and communion, but it's not because I am emotionally driven rather than theologically thought through.
It's merely that we have a different theology of baptism to you not that we don't have one at all.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Er... hang on, Leprechaun. I specified "not most" evangelicals, and I was very careful to contrast thought-through views of baptism with emotionally-driven ones. I hope, if you read my posts again, you will find that your position is probably exempt from what I was talking about.
I am, howver, interested in what you mean by a "non-sacramental" view of baptism. What, in your view, is baptism, then?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm generally with Lep here.
Most churches that practice adult baptism might not hold it as 'sacrimental' as such, but then probably do not understand the nature of 'sacriments'.
I think there is a difference in mindset. That said, it would be wrong to suggest that these churches do not hold baptism and communion seriously. I would argue that their behaviour shows that they hold as seriously - perhaps even more so, dare I say it, than the sacrimental churches.
To a baptist (and/or independant evangelical church), the important thing in a 'believer's baptism' is that you are a believer and you have chosen to be baptised. Most will not recognise infant baptism as valid (in my experience). Hence, it is not a 're-baptism' as the first one did not count. Some will not recognise adult baptism by other churches as valid. It is simply not true to suggest that all churches that hold the apostles creed will accept infant baptism by another church.
It may not be a requirement for salvation, but it is certainly an expected act for a believer.
Returning to the OP, I think I can see the dilemma for the person concerned. On the one hand there is the wanting to do what is right. On the other there is the wanting to do what is right by your particular denomination - and perhaps future churches you might want to join in the future.
I struggled with this for many years and was eventually baptised as an adult (I had not been christened first, though, it must be said) in the anglican church and confirmed. This appears to overcome most difficulties.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Cheesy: quote:
I'm generally with Lep here.
Most churches that practice adult baptism might not hold it as 'sacrimental' as such, but then probably do not understand the nature of 'sacriments'.
In that case, it sounds as though you are not so much with Lep as against him, and, to boot, with his misunderstanding of what I was saying. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Back-to-Front relayed: quote:
A former parish priest of mine once told me about an elderly lady in his former parish, who was, to some degree reliant on her children for financial support. She had brought them all up within the Anglican Church, but they had since all gone to a pentecostal church and been "rebaptised". They had insisted that she also ought to follow them and that they would only continue to support her if she were baptised in this church, which she didn't blieve was possible. You can imagine the pain that this caused her.
This is one of the most disgusting instances of forced conversion I've seen in a while. "Believe what we believe or we'll make you suffer." What gall those holier-than-thou kids had!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Er... hang on, Leprechaun. I specified "not most" evangelicals, and I was very careful to contrast thought-through views of baptism with emotionally-driven ones. I hope, if you read my posts again, you will find that your position is probably exempt from what I was talking about.
I am, howver, interested in what you mean by a "non-sacramental" view of baptism. What, in your view, is baptism, then?
Ok, sorry.
On baptism - it's a symbol. That's it. Like communion is a reminder - that's it.
At my church we do recognise infant baptism as valid (inasmuch as that means anything as you don't need to be baptised to do anything in the church or to take communion or to be a member)reflective of the fact that a lot of us are from paedo-baptist backgrounds and can understand, even if not agree with the Biblical case for it. That said if the candidate feels like they were baptised as a matter of course, and weren't brought up in the church we will baptise them as a public profession of their faith if they so wish.
Someone above referred to this type of activity as a "pretty poor baptismal theology" - IMHO it's not poor, just different.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Leprechaun: quote:
Ok, sorry.
On baptism - it's a symbol. That's it. Like communion is a reminder - that's it.
No problem - in fact, this clarifies it a bit. I'd say that your position is probably Zwinglian - in other words it is a theological position, which I respect but disagree with. In fact a lot of people in my own church espouse it, believing (mistakenly) that it is our position.
But I'm talking about people (and not slagging them off) who basically don't think baptism through, don't compare their own stances with those of other traditions, and far from affirming - as you do - that you believe this because you don't belive the alternatives, don't know of any alternatives, and basically feel free to fit baptism - and rebaptism - into any personal framework they like, which means, usually, some sort of emotional one, connected with "belonging". And "belonging" is such a powerful human need that its demands are very urgent and overriding.
In other words, it's a postmodern religious phenomenon. And I suspect that if you just observe and listen to people round about you in your church milieu, you'll probably find them there too.
As I was trying to say, I think that the problem comes to the surface when a majority of a particular church - and/or the leadership team - are people who see (or, better, feel) things this way. If you've ever tried to discuss these things theologically with people who are feeling-driven, you'll know that it's nearly impossible.
One of the very few things that the Church of Scotland is terribly strict about is that rebaptism is an absolute no-no. Yet it's not that uncommon for ministers to get into terrible trouble over this, because they are pushed about by their own or other people's emotions and feelings.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Lyda Rose: quote:
Back-to-Front relayed:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A former parish priest of mine once told me about an elderly lady in his former parish, who was, to some degree reliant on her children for financial support. She had brought them all up within the Anglican Church, but they had since all gone to a pentecostal church and been "rebaptised". They had insisted that she also ought to follow them and that they would only continue to support her if she were baptised in this church, which she didn't blieve was possible. You can imagine the pain that this caused her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is one of the most disgusting instances of forced conversion I've seen in a while. "Believe what we believe or we'll make you suffer." What gall those holier-than-thou kids had!
Nor are you alone:
quote:
Mark 7: [9]
And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! [10] For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother'; and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die';
[11] but you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) -- [12] then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, [13] thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Mmm well that may be correct, but I doubt it could really be described as PoMo. The anabaptists have been around for a long time, for example (and as I understand it, anabaptist refers to the practice of rebaptising).
The point is that when baptism is associated with a birth and naming ritual, many would argue that some/most/all of such baptisms are actually nothing to do with christianity. I don't think you can just dismiss this clear and critical theological difference as emotionalism.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Cheesy: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mmm well that may be correct, but I doubt it could really be described as PoMo. The anabaptists have been around for a long time, for example (and as I understand it, anabaptist refers to the practice of rebaptising).
No, I'm saying it's postmodern because it's done, not as a matter of theological principle, but on the basis of an eclecticism which is actually subservient to another principle, not intellectual but emotional. It's an exercise in religious pastiche. This goes here [in my life] because I like it that way/feel that I need it just here.
quote:
The point is that when baptism is associated with a birth and naming ritual, many would argue that some/most/all of such baptisms are actually nothing to do with christianity. I don't think you can just dismiss this clear and critical theological difference as emotionalism.
C
And many wouldn't. I wouldn't. I'd say "God only knows" about the human side. Oddly enough, I'd claim to know far more about the divine side of this than the human. I'd say that it was a sign of God's objective grace towards us, rather than of our subjective response to grace. Of course, a response will follow, and it may be rejection. But that does not efface the grace of God's response to us, which is (and this is the Protestant bit!) once-for-all in Christ. (Actually, I'm sure it doesn't sound all that exclusively Protestant any more!)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
