Thread: Purgatory: Validity of baptism from other churches? 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=001034

---

Posted by lazystudent (# 5172) on :
 
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 and don't seem to mind 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. Grr.

[edited thread title]

[ 23. April 2005, 05:53: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Hostly Mobcap ON

I think this thread will be much happier up in Purgatory.

Hostly Mobcap OFF
 

---

Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by lazystudent (# 5172) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

Why?
 

---

Posted by lazystudent (# 5172) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
Oh hush. I've found your posts very sensible.

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.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by lazystudent (# 5172) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by lazystudent (# 5172) on :
 
Thank you, Seeker. Has anyone found an exception to this?
 

---

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
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").
 

---

Posted by lazystudent (# 5172) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by lazystudent (# 5172) on :
 

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.

---

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'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
Well many Evangelicals do not see Baptism as a Sacrament: not all, mind you.

---

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'.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Perhaps because they see no distinction between 'sacrament' and 'Sacrament'?
 

---

Posted by lazystudent (# 5172) on :
 
Huh? There's a difference??? <confused>
 

---

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by HopPik (# 8510) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lazystudent:
Just how widespread is the practice of accepting the baptism of another denomination?

---

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!!!
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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!)
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
(Probably going to regret getting involved in another baptism thread )

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.

---

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'.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

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?

---

quote:

---

Ok, sorry.

On baptism - it's a symbol. That's it. Like communion is a reminder - that's it.

---

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!

---

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."

---

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).

---

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

---

quote:

---

God's response to us,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
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:

---

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!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Does this mean that you think baptism means nothing apart from the expression of faith? You're not incorporated into the death and resurrection of Christ by it, your sins are not forgiven through it, any more than by any other means of confessing the faith, you don't enter the Church by means of it, and you might as well just stand up and say it if you don't like getting wet?

That's fair enough if so, but it's what I'd mean by a weak baptismal theology - not weak as in stupid or poorly thought out, but weak as in, viewing baptism as a weak vehicle for grace in that you don't think it matters much, in comparison to the Catholic position.

The other option, on the other hand, that we must believe in an adult sense before baptism can 'work', seems to me to be inconsistent. If it's just a profession of faith, why the insistence on an adult public ceremony? If there's something other than faith at work, a Holy Mystery perhaps, that may require faith to take hold of for best effect in later life, why the objection to infant baptism and the insistence on full immersion - in short, a rite?

---

quote:

---

I don't think that is a fair reflection of most churches that do adult baptism. Most do it purely on a theological and historical basis. PoMo does not come into it...

That is not the point. With respect, you are just denegrating a whole strand of christianity as illegitimate simply because they have not thought about it as much as you have. The truth is that they hold something to be highly important and self evident (wrongly in your opinion).

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Does this mean that you think baptism means nothing apart from the expression of faith?

---

quote:

---

You're not incorporated into the death and resurrection of Christ by it, your sins are not forgiven through it, any more than by any other means of confessing the faith, you don't enter the Church by means of it,

---

quote:

---

and you might as well just stand up and say it if you don't like getting wet?

---

quote:

---

That's fair enough if so, but it's what I'd mean by a weak baptismal theology - not weak as in stupid or poorly thought out, but weak as in, viewing baptism as a weak vehicle for grace in that you don't think it matters much, in comparison to the Catholic position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Cheesy:

quote:

---

I don't think that is a fair reflection of most churches that do adult baptism. Most do it purely on a theological and historical basis. PoMo does not come into it...

That is not the point. With respect, you are just denegrating a whole strand of christianity as illegitimate simply because they have not thought about it as much as you have. The truth is that they hold something to be highly important and self evident (wrongly in your opinion).

C

---

You seem to be reading things into my posts that I'm just not writing. I am not criticizing those churches - or Christians - whose theology of baptism differs from mine. I'm not actually criticizing anyone. I am noting that I seem to observe a rapid growth in the numbers of people - possibly in all churches - who not only don't have a theology of baptism, or of the sacraments generally, but don't want one, and don't seem to feel that it's necessary to have one. Nowhere have I said that that's illegitimate - that really is your importation.

I'm just noting what I think is a change in the way people think about these things.

As I explained to Leprechaun - I believe to his satisfaction - because my observations are about people who don't have a principled theologically-determined attitude to baptism, they ipso facto exclude anybody who does, whatever that attitude may be, and however much I may disagree with it.

But even with those people who don't, I'm simply noting that this attitude to things religious is on the increase, and in my experience dramatically.

It's no good you coming back to me and saying that "you are just denegrating a whole strand of christianity as illegitimate simply because they have not thought about it as much as you have. The truth is that they hold something to be highly important and self evident (wrongly in your opinion)." That simply isn't what I'm doing.

I invite you to re-read my posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Cheesy, I think I made myself less than clear. I'm seeing three positions here, not two.

1. Baptism is sacramental, important, and doesn't require an adult profession of faith first.

2. Baptism is symbolic in the same way as standing for the Gospel reading is - it expresses faith but does nothing and it's the faith that is salvific.

3. Baptism is not sacramental but it's what you must do to confess your adult faith and thus be saved.

The approach taken by Leprechaun's church as I read it from his post, is #2, not #3 which is what those who don't accept infant baptism at all, subscribe to.

I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
well, I wouldn't quite go that far, because I believe this is the method of public profession that Jesus commands, so I'm with him on that.

---

quote:

---

OK - weak in that there is not much to it, but not weak as in un-robust or un-thought through.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Cheesy, I think I made myself less than clear. I'm seeing three positions here, not two.

1. Baptism is sacramental, important, and doesn't require an adult profession of faith first.

2. Baptism is symbolic in the same way as standing for the Gospel reading is - it expresses faith but does nothing and it's the faith that is salvific.

3. Baptism is not sacramental but it's what you must do to confess your adult faith and thus be saved.

The approach taken by Leprechaun's church as I read it from his post, is #2, not #3 which is what those who don't accept infant baptism at all, subscribe to.

I think.

---

quote:

---

This isn't consistent with accepting infant baptism then, or with baptising anyone not competent to make such a decision, is it?

Would your church accept someone as a member of the Body of Christ who hadn't been dunked as an adult?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Nobody I know of thinks that baptism is a precondition of being saved. They do think it is something that the believer will do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Cheesy, you are completely misrepresenting me. I just don't see how my posts can be read as saying that.

And people go into churches "because of PoMo" because they are increasingly postmodern people, in a postmodern world. That's what oit's like out there, and so increasingly that's what it's luike in here as well, and there's nothing on God's good green postmodern earth that we can do to stop it.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
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.

---

I don't think that is a fair reflection of most churches that do adult baptism. Most do it purely on a theological and historical basis. PoMo does not come into it.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

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!)

---

That is not the point. With respect, you are just denegrating a whole strand of christianity as illegitimate simply because they have not thought about it as much as you have. The truth is that they hold something to be highly important and self evident (wrongly in your opinion).

C

---

quote:

---

You are severely misrepresenting evangelical churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Nobody I know of thinks that baptism is a precondition of being saved. They do think it is something that the believer will do.

---

Not strictly causal, sorry.

If a church refuses communion to those who haven't had an adult dunking, and claims communion is open to all believers, and says that being dunked is a mark that you're a believer, then they're saying that those who believe they're already baptised and won't do it again, are not believers and therefore aren't saved.

So not as simplistic as what I wrote, I admit, but it amounts to the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I would have thought it far more convenient to today's mindset to believe that something that happened to you as a baby has an influence on your eternal destiny. That way someone else conveniently promises things from you, gives you something you nobody can take away from you, and conveniently means that you personally have to do buggerall to be part of this faith. Tick all the boxes without doing anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
With respect, that is not what is said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Leprechaun quoth

quote:

---

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.

---

That seems to me to be an example of the attitude about which Psyduck is warning. You will re-baptise (and if you accept some infant baptisms as valid then it is re-baptism) someone if they feel like they weren't baptised. This is based on emotion not theology. There are other ways of an individual making a public profession of their faith than being re-baptised.

---

quote:

---

The insistance on adult baptism is simple - nobody can promise things for someone else. It is not a rite (as such). It is a statement of faith.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry it is so hard to explain, but as I said, it is a completely different mindset.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I would have thought it far more convenient to today's mindset to believe that something that happened to you as a baby has an influence on your eternal destiny. That way someone else conveniently promises things from you, gives you something you nobody can take away from you, and conveniently means that you personally have to do buggerall to be part of this faith. Tick all the boxes without doing anything.

---

Is that an evangelical denying grace I see?

There's no difference whatsoever between taking hold of the promises made on your behalf as an infant, and taking hold of the promises you make yourself as an adult, if making your faith active through works is what you think is important, Cheesy.

In Hell you laid into what you call institutional churches for their doing bugger all - and then ran away when you were asked what you yourself were doing, and when several people gave examples contradicting your position. That's fair enough in Hell, but is this going to be another hit-and-run or are you going to back it up this time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Leprechaun quoth

quote:

---

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.

---

That seems to me to be an example of the attitude about which Psyduck is warning. You will re-baptise (and if you accept some infant baptisms as valid then it is re-baptism) someone if they feel like they weren't baptised. This is based on emotion not theology. There are other ways of an individual making a public profession of their faith than being re-baptised.

---

With respect it is not. The theological underpinnings of this position are several:
1) that there are valid Biblical reason for believing in infant baptism and believers Baptism
2) that baptism is nonsacramental - and therefore it really doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the person whether they are done twice or not
3) that only the individual knows of they have repented and trusted Christ or not. If, as many of our members have found, they were baptised as a child but their baptismal vows were not kept by their parents, and they have made a commitment to Christ later in life, we will baptise them as believers.

You may not agree with the theology Carys, but it's all pretty standard evangelical fare, and it is most certainly not emotionally guided.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I am trying to put across the evangelical point of view, inexpertly because I do not wholeheartedly agree with it.

---

quote:

---

Most evangelicals would disagree with you. Most evanglicals would hold that nobody can make promises for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In evangelical theology, ritual is just not all that important. I think you are having difficulty grasping that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I am trying to put across the evangelical point of view, inexpertly because I do not wholeheartedly agree with it.

---

That's probably what's going wrong here, then. Sorry for wading in so enthusiastically.

I still think there are two distinct camps in evangelicalism here though.

quote:

---

Most evangelicals would disagree with you. Most evanglicals would hold that nobody can make promises for you.

---

This is my point of attack, actually. In order to deny an infant baptism, and this is #3 on my list and not #2 (which includes Leprechaun), you are saying that adult full immersion baptism is the only way the promise can be made, or the way it must be made, and a true indicator of faith.

If it's purely about a promise, then I promise everything I promised at my baptism every week in the liturgy of the Eucharist and I'm an adult. If it's the only possible way the promise can be made, then you've said that if anyone refuses this they're refusing to turn to Christ and thus are not saved according to this theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I know of several occasions where people have been refused membership because they were baptised as infants. I also know of several churches where you will not be administered communion unless you have been baptised by them.

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In evangelical theology, ritual is just not all that important. I think you are having difficulty grasping that.

---

Then how, when or even whether your baptism takes place should not be all that important either - which is consistent with what you've said but not with the line Cheesy's been attemting to defend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Back to the OP - one of the minor reasons I would never have had my children sprinkled or immersed as babies was that it would not mess up any desire for them to be baptised after becoming christians.

---

quote:

---

Psyduck, not all protestants asssociate baptism with circumcision. Some think Paul disposed ot the latter and go for following what Jesus did and remembering mikvahsas symbolic of cleansing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
These churches harp back to the sixteenth century just as the Roman Catholics harp back to [whichever century they harp back to] and the Orthodox to the first century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Just a bit of a tangent, but are you really not aware that the Roman branch of the Church Catholic has been there from the first century?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Just a bit of a tangent, but are you really not aware that the Roman branch of the Church Catholic has been there from the first century?

I think your assessment of the theological thinking of most evangelicals is maybe a bit unkind, too. The baptism-circumcision link isn't a difficult or obscure one, is it?

---

quote:

---

The churches I was refering to which do not give communion to others are some of the oldest in protestantism. These are the Strict and Peculiar/Particular Baptists (and derivatives thereof) which trace themselves back to the Westminister Confession of 16somethingorother.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, they would give little truck to postmodernism.

---

quote:

---

Someone who wants to exercise their choices of behaviour and belief is very unlikely to become involved in that kind of evangelical church where such things are highly regulated.

---

quote:

---

Also, it is a mistake to characterise some as being 'traditionalist' and some as not. These churches harp back to the sixteenth century just as the Roman Catholics harp back to [whichever century they harp back to] and the Orthodox to the first century.

---

quote:

---

What you'll have, in any given place, are some of the older Christian traditions - RC, Anglican, Reformed, Baptist - with roots older than the postmodern, but with postmodern people drawn to them because the traditions they embody are profoundly important to them. And I include certain types of evangelical here.

---

quote:

---

Someone who wants to exercise their choices of behaviour and belief is very unlikely to become involved in [the] kind of evangelical church where such things are highly regulated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Are you not aware that whole sections of protestant evangelicalism characterise themselves as 'not-roman-catholic'? The argument that 'we've been around since the year dot' holds no water in most evangelical circles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
These churches harp back to the sixteenth century just as the Roman Catholics harp back to [whichever century they harp back to] and the Orthodox to the first century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
The problem over here in the US nowadays is the formula used at baptism. Some churches (in quest of inclusive language) have ceased baptising "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".

Instead, they baptise "In the Name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier".

What think ye all of that?

---

quote:

---

there would be a case for conditional baptism.

---

quote:

---

modalism.

---

quote:

---

My advice is to laugh, then cry, then start the catechesis of such people yourself.

---

 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
There seems to be a concentric model of fellowship - this church is ok with this small group of other local churches (ie communion no problem), on speaking terms with these others (probably no problem regarding communion) and knows of these others (may be some discussion). Anyone who is not a baptist falls far outwith the closest ring of fellowship.

On a wider scale, this appears to me to be what is happening in the larger evangelical movements, though I may be totally wrong. Can one take communion in a New Horizons church if one is from a Vineyard church?

---

quote:

---

I'd be interested to know how you think you'd feel about the issue if they died the day before they were due to be baptised? I'm also interested in your explanation of how they're, according to your terms, not Christians now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
So how about baptism in these churches?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
GreyFace:

quote:

---

I'd be interested to know how you think you'd feel about the issue if they died the day before they were due to be baptised? I'm also interested in your explanation of how they're, according to your terms, not Christians now.

---

I don't think I would worry about that (except the loss). I actually remember a sermon years and years ago which may have impacted on me. The minister was saying, with great emphasis, that God would in no way condemn children. I think there must have been people in his congregation who identified god with condemnation.

---

quote:

---

IMO, baptism does not produce "salvation" or make someone a "Christian". It's a public witness that they identify themself as a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Back to the OP - one of the minor reasons I would never have had my children sprinkled or immersed as babies was that it would not mess up any desire for them to be baptised after becoming christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
The youngest I have heard any evangelicals claim to have 'become a christian' is age 5, but that is very unusual (most are much older).

---

quote:

---

And yes, we evangelicals don't believe our children are Christians until they make a profession for themselves.

---

quote:

---

I 'became a Christian' before I was 5.

---

I would say that I was born a Christian - born into a Christian home in which the Christian faith surrounded me - well, I'd argue in utero. I was baptised as a very small infant, and Christ's people were always my people. I could have left, but never did. I'd say that I've always been a Christian. And yes, there have been many, many occasions on which I've publicly professed my faith - but I don't understand any of those as being anything to do with "becoming a Christian". My understanding is that I've always been a Christian.

Please understand that I'm not looking to deprecate anyone else's different understanding of what it means to "be" or "become" a Christian. I'm simply saying how it is with me.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I don't want anyone to mistake me for a Calvinist or anything but is it a meaningful question to ask from any point of view that has God involved?

I believe I became a Christian at my baptism at the very latest - because that's one of the things baptism is, becoming part of the Church. I took hold of the faith in various dribs and drabs for many years afterwards but that's not what was asked.

[spelling]

[ 21. March 2005, 21:00: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
The reason I asked was that it seems to me that some people probably wouldn't object too much to the suggestion that (a1) being a Christian is nothing to do with being baptised, whereas (a2)being baptised has everything to do with being a Christian; that (b) being baptised is nothing to do with being saved, whereas (c) being a Christian is everything to do with being saved, and the two may indeed be synonymous.

Other people seem to be saying that (a) being baptised is being a Christian, (b)that being a Christian, if it means anything, is very close to meaning "has been baptized", and (c) that it's possible for Christians as Christians to be eternally lost. (This last one I'm not clear on, but I do remember a clergy fraternal at which the lovely, but decidedly pre-Vatican II, RC priest answered a question from someone who clearly took the first position above - that the important thing was being a Christian, not baptism, and I think was saying that not everybody who was baptised was a Christian - by saying that for all that Baptismal regeneration is real, if someone who had been baptised went to hell, they went as a baptised Christian.

I think this shocked the person he was talking to, but it did make it quite clear that for him, "Christian" wasn't synonymous with "saved".
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
(This last one I'm not clear on, but I do remember a clergy fraternal at which the lovely, but decidedly pre-Vatican II, RC priest answered a question from someone who clearly took the first position above - that the important thing was being a Christian, not baptism, and I think was saying that not everybody who was baptised was a Christian - by saying that for all that Baptismal regeneration is real, if someone who had been baptised went to hell, they went as a baptised Christian.

I think this shocked the person he was talking to, but it did make it quite clear that for him, "Christian" wasn't synonymous with "saved".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

I think this shocked the person he was talking to, but it did make it quite clear that for him, "Christian" wasn't synonymous with "saved".

---

Well for me, being a Christian is synonymous with being 'saved'. I guess this is the typical evangelical position, which is why we find it hard to stomach things such as baptismal regeneration.

By the way, I'm not ignoring your earlier question addressed to me 'What is a Christian?', just hoping that instead of me fumbling for the right words, one of the more articulate evangelicals can try to explain our position to you. Custard? Gordon? Lep? Anyone?

[ 21. March 2005, 21:40: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Trisagion:

quote:

---

I don't think that that is decidely pre-Vatican II.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Fulfilling such conditions is, at least now, widely held to be difficult but there is a respectable view in Catholic thought that if there is anyone in Hell, they would have to be baptised (in order to have any chance of full knowledge of the seriousness of the unrepented sin freely committed).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I might disagree with the understanding of baptism in the historic believers' baptism traditions, but I recognise that there is theology involved and that it does have a historical foundation (even if it a mere 400 years!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Surely then Our Lord would have ordered the Apostles to be thoroughly sure they never baptised anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Gwir y gair, onide?

---

quote:

---

"Strange place for pride to lurk - in houses built on the sand!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

IMO, baptism does not produce "salvation" or make someone a "Christian". It's a public witness that they identify themself as a Christian. It's up to us to decide and say that, if that's the vacabulary of our church or denomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
Believer's baptism is the oldest form of Christian baptism, with the baptism of infants coming many centuries later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I'm sure Pelagius would be gratified to know he still has support in these Isles after all those years...

No baptism doesn't 'produce' salvation. God does that in Christ by the working of the Spirit. Baptism is the normative means by which it is covenanted, although, of course, salvation is not the sole preserve of the baptised (the Kingdom is not the Church.) As for making someone a Christian - the word means 'someone who is baptised' (compare 'christening'). That is what it has meant for most of the Church's history for most members of the Church. The fact that a relatively small number of (largely) Europeans and Americans since the 16th century have wanted to define Christianity in terms of what we do for God rather than of what God does for us (in baptism) is not a good reason to refrain from this use.

---

 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
...No baptism doesn't 'produce' salvation. God does that in Christ by the working of the Spirit. Baptism is the normative means by which it is covenanted, although, of course, salvation is not the sole preserve of the baptised (the Kingdom is not the Church.) As for making someone a Christian - the word means 'someone who is baptised' (compare 'christening'). That is what it has meant for most of the Church's history for most members of the Church. The fact that a relatively small number of (largely) Europeans and Americans since the 16th century have wanted to define Christianity in terms of what we do for God rather than of what God does for us (in baptism) is not a good reason to refrain from this use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

Gracie:
I would say that I was born a Christian - born into a Christian home in which the Christian faith surrounded me - well, I'd argue in utero. I was baptised as a very small infant, and Christ's people were always my people. I could have left, but never did. I'd say that I've always been a Christian. And yes, there have been many, many occasions on which I've publicly professed my faith - but I don't understand any of those as being anything to do with "becoming a Christian". My understanding is that I've always been a Christian.

Please understand that I'm not looking to deprecate anyone else's different understanding of what it means to "be" or "become" a Christian. I'm simply saying how it is with me.

---

quote:

---

No baptism doesn't 'produce' salvation. God does that in Christ by the working of the Spirit. Baptism is the normative means by which it is covenanted, although, of course, salvation is not the sole preserve of the baptised (the Kingdom is not the Church.)

---

quote:

---

Believer's baptism is the oldest form of Christian baptism, with the baptism of infants coming many centuries later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

IMO, baptism does not produce "salvation" or make someone a "Christian". It's a public witness that they identify themself as a Christian. It's up to us to decide and say that, if that's the vacabulary of our church or denomination.

---

I'm sure Pelagius would be gratified to know he still has support in these Isles after all those years...

---

quote:

---

To me saying that 'this is where I am now, this is generally how I got here and quite where I crossed the line between unbelief into belief is anyone's guess' is as close as I can get. I couldn't even name the year. So I don't neatly fit within any of the boxes.

---

quote:

---

Indeed. His support comes from those who believe an un-asked for work of ritual dispensed by the right church with the right formula (and NOT otherwise) brings one into the Christian family.

---

quote:

---

The evangelical position on "being a Christian" is AFAIK that one is brought into the kingdom of God by faith in Christ. This faith cannot be passed on to you by someone else...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. [Pelagius'] support comes from those who believe an un-asked for work of ritual dispensed by the right church with the right formula (and NOT otherwise) brings one into the Christian family.

---

quote:

---

I have to say the idea that the evangelical position is MORE Pelagian than the Catholic one is pretty much laughable.

---

quote:

---

The evangelical position on "being a Christian" is AFAIK that one is brought into the kingdom of God by faith in Christ. This faith cannot be passed on to you by someone else, nor can it be foisted on you by the decision of your family or the church hierarchy. Hence Believers Baptism.

---

quote:

---

I believe a good Calvinist would also say that one who has been predestined for the kingdom from the beginning of time, has been Christian from long before their birth.

---

quote:

---

I believe that faith, as a trusting response to Christ, is God's gift, and that it simply isn't possible to judge who has it and who hasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I believe a good Calvinist would also say that one who has been predestined for the kingdom from the beginning of time, has been Christian from long before their birth. Your view of faith in this last quoted paragraph looks remarkably Arminian in character, Lep.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
That's definitely not the Pelagius I know! Quite seriously, I think that many evangelicals would be horrified to realise just how spiritually close they are to Pelagius, and to the terrible danger of turning faith into a work - "the right faith, taught by the right church, with the right formula".

---

Ah - but thats not a work, Psyduck. Thats an obligation (totally different, )

quote:

---

But I certainly believe that the human, psychological actuality of being brought up in the faith of a Christian family and church is that you're in it until you reject it - and that can be a bad thing as well as a good thing, in human and psychological terms.

Most of the evangelicals I know are warm, human people - but I just can't see how, on their account of faith, children and those incapable of a cognitive grasp of the faith (and I'm very clear that they are two different categories) can be saved.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe that faith as such saves. I believe that God saves, in Christ, and that saving faith is precisely believing that. Not believing that we believe it. And Baptism is about God's saving love and grace in Christ - not about faith in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I might disagree with the understanding of baptism in the historic believers' baptism traditions, but I recognise that there is theology involved and that it does have a historical foundation (even if it is a mere 400 years!).

---

Sorry, I couldn't just let this lie. it's quite insulting really.

Believer's baptism is the oldest form of Christian baptism, with the baptism of infants coming many centuries later.

Formalised Baptist churches may be relatively recent in the history of the church, but those who have held to the biblical pattern of baptising believers have been around for 2000 years.

---

quote:

---

Speaking personally, I have always had a problem with 'child' christian commitments. This is basically because before you get to a certain age (which is different for each individual) it is impossible to tell a) how much understanding is attached to the words you are saying and b) how much influence significant others have had on you. Until a child can decide rationally and separate their beliefs from the accepted (normally parential) beliefs, I would argue that such statements are largely worthless.

---

quote:

---

IME you believe wrongly about Calvinists. Nearly all I have met would not say that someone has been a Christian from the time they were predestined. Rather that regeneration and faith come at the time of salvation, and that "being saved" and "becoming a Christian" are to be equated. In which order regeneration and faith come depends on how Calvinist you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Hence if one believes that we are saved from the beginning of time and at the same time that baptism is a sign of faith, then it is vitally important to only only baptise those who are known to be saved.

---

quote:

---

To baptise those who may or may not in the future be shown to be saved makes a nonsense of it (I think they would argue).

---

quote:

---

Hence if one believes that we are saved from the beginning of time and at the same time that baptism is a sign of faith, then it is vitally important to only only baptise those who are known to be saved.

---

You're absolutely right - and doesn't that show how ridiculously distorted an argument that is?

At a synod in Denbigh in I think 1812, a bunch of hypercalvinist Methodists were going a mile a minute on this general theme, and one of them (I can't remember who) came away with the gem that if he knew who in his congregation was saved, he'd only preach to them! The basis of course was limited atonement.

As it happened, Robert ap Gwilym Ddu, the poetic genius, was asked about this, and off the top of his head produced this englyn (a poetic form which is several million times harder to do than a haiku!)

Paham y gwneir cam a'r cymod - a'r iawn
A' rinwedd dros bechod?
Dywedwch faint y Duwdod -
'Run faint iw'r Iawn i fod.

Roughly:

Why is the Covenant wronged - and the Atonement,
And its power (virtue) over sin?
Tell me how big God is -
That's how big the Atonement should be.

What he was militating against was this fusion of Calvinism and evangelicalismwhich makes God as much of a prisoner of the Decrees as the rest of us. Seventeenth-century Calvinism is a scholastic desert, and late eighteenth-century evangelical Calvinism is a theological and human Chernobyl. There's only one place to go if you want a Reformed faith that's any use, and that's teh sixteenth century.

The Scottish Reformation Fathers believed that Baptism, like Communion, was a 'converting ordinance" It had the power to change lives, because God's Word was in it, and God's Word is Christ.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 

quote:

---

iw'r

---

quote:

---

yw'r

---

of course!
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
And A' rinwedd should presumably have been A'i rinwedd?

Carys

[random line break]

[ 22. March 2005, 10:25: Message edited by: Carys ]
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

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.

---

I would use the term 'sacrament' quite a lot but I would not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Is it that the one baptism (as in one Lord, one faith, one baptism) mentioned in the Bible is the baptism by the Holy Spirit at conversion (for you were all baptised by the one Spirit into the one Body)?

For me then, baptism is a spiritual transaction - being born again - and may or may not be symbolised by the washing with a tankful of water, the sprinkling with a few drops from a font, or indeed 'dry-cleaning' (hope that's not irreverent) in a Salvation Army 'swearing-in' ceremony. In all these symbolic ceremonies the candidate bears allegiance to Christ as Lord, witnesses to his faith in him, his new life and his union with the Body of Christ as visible in the congregation.

I don't belioeve baptism in the outward sense actually does anything for the soul, but it may certainly reflect that spiritual transaction, already made, where Christ, the TRUE sacrament of God, is received by grace through faith.

I think there are far more sacraments than the 2 or even the 7.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
By the way, Psyduck, congratulations on the wonderful Welsh victory last Saturday. Definitely predestined, but needed a lot of work to bring it into being.

I think there are people who believe in conversion/being born again/being saved/becoming a Christian etc. who take on board the realisation that someone who is (usually) brought up in a Christian home responds to God by instinct. The baptism would be their public affirmation of that.

It isoften to the irritation and joking about,when a child or teenager of that ilk is asked, "When were you converted?" "What is your testimony?" I remember hearing one of my children say to a group of visitors from the east who were sharing testimonies, and was asked for his, "My problem is that I was brought up as a christian..."
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:


What he was militating against was this fusion of Calvinism and evangelicalismwhich makes God as much of a prisoner of the Decrees as the rest of us. Seventeenth-century Calvinism is a scholastic desert, and late eighteenth-century evangelical Calvinism is a theological and human Chernobyl. There's only one place to go if you want a Reformed faith that's any use, and that's teh sixteenth century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

...I'm reinforced in my own conviction that you can't be a Calvinist and an evangelical, or a Calvinist and a Baptist, without the kinds of contradictions that mean that you are only the one when you stop being the other momentarily. Specifically, I don't believe that the doctrine of grace implicit in believers' baptism is compatible with a Reformed position.

---

quote:

---

Is it that the one baptism (as in one Lord, one faith, one baptism) mentioned in the Bible is the baptism by the Holy Spirit at conversion (for you were all baptised by the one Spirit into the one Body)?

---

That's it!
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Carys:

quote:

---

A' rinwedd should presumably have been A'i rinwedd?

---

quote:

---

That's pretty rude.

---

quote:

---

But aside from that you seem to be saying Calvinism=Universalism. I doubt Calvin would have gone for that.

---

quote:

---

you can't be a Calvinist and an evangelical, or a Calvinist and a Baptist

---

Oh dear you've just written off my entire denomination

 

---

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
From Psyduck

quote:

---

you can't be a Calvinist and an evangelical, or a Calvinist and a Baptist

---

Oh dear you've just written off my entire denomination

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
From Psyduck

quote:

---

you can't be a Calvinist and an evangelical, or a Calvinist and a Baptist

---

Oh dear you've just written off my entire denomination

---

I don't want to disagree with your specialist knowledge G-r, but I understood that the Grace Baptists took great pride in not being a denomination....

C

---

yes you are right cheesy. It was a lazy use of language.

 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Back to the OP's line of thinking:

In the more sacramental churches, would a previous BB non-sacramental baptism, sprinkled or not, be accepted as valid for joining?
 

---

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
If done with running water or by immersion in water and in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, then yes.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Og: Yes, because in spite of the belief of the Christian doing the baptism, the baptism would be a sacrament. We rely on God to be faithful, not the theological understanding of the person doing the job.

We've been poking around the edges of how far differing views on the nature of the sacraments are considered to bring their efficacy into question, in Catholic teaching in particular, but that's about the size of it.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
From Psyduck
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you can't be a Calvinist and an evangelical, or a Calvinist and a Baptist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh dear you've just written off my entire denomination

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

Well, I don't. With the best will in the world, I don't think that these people are Calvinists, but evangelicals who think they are Calvinist - and indeed say they are, which they have every right to do. They don't even have to explain the contradictions in their positions, if they don't want to. But on the basis of the unfolding of this thread, I'm reinforced in my own conviction that you can't be a Calvinist and an evangelical, or a Calvinist and a Baptist, without the kinds of contradictions that mean that you are only the one when you stop being the other momentarily. Specifically, I don't believe that the doctrine of grace implicit in believers' baptism is compatible with a Reformed position.

---

quote:

---

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world...Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized...The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto,[that's teh Calvinsit bit!!!] according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
You mean that the elect are predestined to seek a believer's baptism which isn't necessary for salvation but without which they aren't predestined to salvation, so aren't saved?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:


So, as an infant, we don't have the power to reject the gift. As an adult, as we become increasingly self-possessed, we gain the power to refuse grace and also the power to refuse baptism by refusing to turn up. There's a difference here - it's not that a child can't give consent, but rather that an adult can refuse by turning away from God, if you like.

Is there anyone around who believes in the position that Cheesy presented earlier? That we should be careful not to baptise non-believers since it's a response to faith? Because if that's true then I'd be grateful for an answer to my argument about people falling away from faith in later life, and thus the impossibility of judging someone's faith with any accuracy.

The Reformed position seems to be, baptise 'em all, God knows his own, and the grace for which baptism is a vehicle is lifelong or even eternal. That's not far from what I'd say myself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Just had a thought, and that being such a rare occurence I thought I'd share it with everyone reading this thread.

Does anyone here think that we can baptise ourselves? If so, you can stop reading now.

Okay, those of you who're still with me - doesn't this shoot down in flames the idea that baptism is primarily our response to the gift of faith? It's about something done for us by God through the Church, surely.

---

quote:

---

Well, for someone who doesn't believe it, Cheesy has done an excellent job of explaining the Calvinist position.

---

quote:

---

2. One becomes aware in this life that God has elected you.

---

quote:

---

And has also pointed out my own problem with Psyduck's argument - which is that in infant baptism it is not God who chooses at all, nor the individual, but puts the power of salvation somewhere between the child's parents and the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
In baptism, as in everything else, all is grace. Baptism does two things: it confers a Christian identity, full stop - an identity which can of course be repudiated later; and it conveys the grace that God intends to be received to the soul intended to receive it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
It's perfectly possible for this not to happen. And it's perfectly possible for people to spend a devout lifetime going to church, and not know whether they're elect or not. Going to church, getting your child baptized, being baptized yourself if you weren't as a child - none of these things guarantee anything. Although oddly enough, they do make you a ChristianBelieve me, I'm not blind to the awfulness at the heart of much Calvinist thought.

---

quote:

---

And that's the point. For a Calvinist position, especially a rigorist one, baptism could only be about our response if it were nothing to do with grace. Because otherwise it would tie God's grace and our response together in such a way that there was a two-way dependence.

---

quote:

---

Not at all. That just doesn't hold water. That's like saying that the saving power of the crucifixion lies somewhere between the arresting party and the soldiers at the foot of the cross.

---

quote:

---

That's why I quoted the Westminster Confession so fully above - which I forbear to do again for the sake of bandwidth. In baptism, as in everything else, all is grace. Baptism does two things: it confers a Christian identity, full stop - an identity which can of course be repudiated later; and it conveys the grace that God intends to be received to the soul intended to receive it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:


[just to make the point that I don't believe in this stuff and am struggling to put their views forward]

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
If baptism=saving grace, then how is this not the church conferring salvation regardless of the faith of the individual? This is the opposite of reformed thought, ISTM.

---

quote:

---

But Psyduck - no one can confer this grace except the church.

---

quote:

---

Actually, I think they [sc. Calvinist Baptists] would argue that it is not possible to go through this life unaware that you are part of the elect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
Believer's baptism is the oldest form of Christian baptism, with the baptism of infants coming many centuries later.

---

Evidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
As others have asked where is the evidence that the baptism of infants came centuries later? The whole households in Acts point towards infant baptism IMO. Even if, as I have heard some evangelicals claim, there were no infants in those households,*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Halo:
Surely baptism of a baby is a different matter to baptism as an adult? A baby has no clue what is going on and is incapable of making a decision for themself, whereas an adult chooses to be baptised. What happens if the baby grows up and rejects God? Are they still 'baptised'? My understanding was that only believers should be baptised. Answers anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I have a question instead. Are you an Arminian?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
and me...do you believe repentance is a choice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Halo:
My understanding was that only believers should be baptised. Answers anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Just had a thought, and that being such a rare occurence I thought I'd share it with everyone reading this thread.

Does anyone here think that we can baptise ourselves? If so, you can stop reading now.

Okay, those of you who're still with me - doesn't this shoot down in flames the idea that baptism is primarily our response to the gift of faith? It's about something done for us by God through the Church, surely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

Is there anyone around who believes in the position that Cheesy presented earlier? That we should be careful not to baptise non-believers since it's a response to faith?

---

Churches I belonged to always had that stance. Before you were baptised, you had to go through a teaching course, then be interviewd by senior members of the congregation, who then reported back to the members' meeting, who then voted on whether to accept the person/s wanting baptism, who would then normally be admitted also to full membership in a service at the end of the baptism, which also had communion as well as the right hand of fellowship. There would have to be a testimony at your baptism service.

I once belonged to a church that practised that position toughly. Only once, a young woman was refused. That felt horrible. She joined another local church who were fully willing to accept her.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
I'm going to have the record for triple posting
Greyface:

quote:

---

Now, Leprechaun has argued earlier that whether one is baptised or not doesn't matter, but it would be strange for someone who believed that to actively argue against infant baptism, as said infant baptism couldn't make the slightest bit of difference to - well, anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Matrix, your evidence shifts the goalposts, by arguing that because believers were baptised, believer's baptism is true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:


Now, Leprechaun has argued earlier that whether one is baptised or not doesn't matter, but it would be strange for someone who believed that to actively argue against infant baptism, as said infant baptism couldn't make the slightest bit of difference to - well, anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
Not at all, i originally argued that believers' baptism is the oldest form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Psyduck - what I mean is this: who ACTUALLY makes the decision that the child is dunked in water? The church. And you say that ritual imparts grace. So the church imparts saving grace to people - rather than God. Unless I am misunderstanding completely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
Not at all, i originally argued that believers' baptism is the oldest form.

---

No, you didn't. Your logic is faulty.

You showed that believers were baptised. You did not show that infants were not baptised, and so you did not show that the believer's baptism doctrine (which is that only those capable of an adult confession of faith should be baptised) is the oldest form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
The please forgive my illogical argument and correct me by showing me an earlier example of infant baptism. Thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
The please forgive my illogical argument and correct me by showing me an earlier example of infant baptism. Thanks.

---

I don't have to. I'm not asserting that infant baptism is demonstrably the oldest form.

Am I not explaining this very well? I'm saying that your arguments for believer's baptism prove nothing because the sacramental view of baptism includes the baptism of believers.

The doctrine of believer's baptism precludes the baptism of infants, so if you manage to deny that the household of Cornelius et al included infants, then you still have to provide some other biblical evidence of a refusal to baptise an infant, in order to prove your assertion.

Does that makes sense yet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Psyduck - what I mean is this: who ACTUALLY makes the decision that the child is dunked in water? The church. And you say that ritual imparts grace. So the church imparts saving grace to people - rather than God. Unless I am misunderstanding completely.

---

Do you think that God does not act through the Church? That the only vehicle of grace is a direct channel to the soul, or something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I believe the only vehicle of saving grace is the message of the Gospel

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
...I'm reinforced in my own conviction that you can't be a Calvinist and an evangelical, or a Calvinist and a Baptist, without the kinds of contradictions that mean that you are only the one when you stop being the other momentarily. Specifically, I don't believe that the doctrine of grace implicit in believers' baptism is compatible with a Reformed position.

...But I do stand by what I meant. I simply can't understand how someone whose view of baptism is that it is the public profession and embracing of Christian faith, in an act we freely undertake, can simultaneously believe that the whole of salvation is God's work from beginning to end. The Reformed tradition baptises infants for a variety of convergent reasons; the Church/Israel Baptism/Circumcision one is one, but another is that, following Paul, baptism is connected with the death of Christ, which took place for us when we were powerless to accept or reject it. Salvation, in this tradition, is always something done for us which we could never have accomplished for ourselves, but it seems to me that there's nothing more Arminian (and not necessarily the worse for that) than believers' baptism as all its advocates on this thread have expounded it. Surely, believers' baptism is all about the cruciality of our response. That's why I just can't get my head round the fusion of BB with any sort of Calvinism.

Or rather - I can. And it really worries me. On the one hand you have a tradition which on its right wing emphasizes relentlessly election, predestination, the inscrutability of the Divine Decrees. On the other, you have a tradition which emphasizes a decisive, life-changing experience. What really worries me is that if you fuse them, you wind up with a hybrid theology that sees a particular kind of conversion experience as the guarantee of election. It's then terribly hard to avoid the temptation of saying that people who haven't had the same kind of experience as me aren't saved.

At least as bad - and maybe far worse - I've come across many people who have come to doubt their own conversion experiences within this kind of hybrid framework, sometimes because others have made them doubt if the experience they have had really is the Real Thing. In this framework you seem to have the danger (which doesn't seem to occur in an Arminian framework to the same degree, or in the same way) of people coming to be insecure about their own conversion experiences, and the theoretical possibility is there - which doesn't obtain in the same way in an Arminian setting - that this could all be some sort of terrible delusion, part not of election but of reprobation. And I've also come across one or two instances of this insecurity being exploited destructively by people who seem to want to erode the faith of others.

Calvin himself was so terribly circumspect about the conclusions that you could draw from subjective experience. You could, perhaps, know your own election, but never anyone else's. Which is basically the same as saying that you could know God's love, and trust it. The traditional Calvinist piety is a trusting in God's promises, and the traditional Calvinist sacramental piety is to take them in simple trust as means of grace. The heart of them is what God offers, not what we bring. Faith is what lets us see what God means by these great things...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
The please forgive my illogical argument and correct me by showing me an earlier example of infant baptism. Thanks.

---

I don't have to. I'm not asserting that infant baptism is demonstrably the oldest form.

Am I not explaining this very well? I'm saying that your arguments for believer's baptism prove nothing because the sacramental view of baptism includes the baptism of believers.

The doctrine of believer's baptism precludes the baptism of infants, so if you manage to deny that the household of Cornelius et al included infants, then you still have to provide some other biblical evidence of a refusal to baptise an infant, in order to prove your assertion.

Does that makes sense yet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
What i am saying, and perhaps you are struggling to understand, is that the oldest form of Christian baptism is in fact believers' baptism. I prove this by showing from the earliest records that the only people baptised were believers.

---

This does not prove it, because the other forms of baptism baptise believers too.

I'm not casting aspersions on your ability to understand my argument. I'm explicitly stating that you don't understand it, or you would not be able to write what you just wrote.

This is most likely because of my inability to explain myself - please don't take offence. I can't see how to do a better job of it though, so I'll give up.

I would however, want to ask you why you're so certain that the various households that were baptised had no young children.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:


Do you not believe in sanctification by the power of the Holy Spirit, for example? Or only by an individual's response to the Gospel after saving grace has been imparted by God allowing (some of) us to hear it clearly? As a kind of working towards holiness in which God is not involved other than as originator?

---

All through the Gospel GF. That's why I need to hear it as much after I am a Christian as before.

ETA Gracie exactly what I meant to say.

[ 23. March 2005, 15:19: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 

---

Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
[ This does not prove it, because the other forms of baptism baptise believers too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
Perhaps we are constantly misunderstadning each other, in which case we may have to abandon this in avoidance of ulcers and migraines, but are you suggesting that in the practice of infant baptism, the infant is a believer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
Perhaps we are constantly misunderstadning each other, in which case we may have to abandon this in avoidance of ulcers and migraines, but are you suggesting that in the practice of infant baptism, the infant is a believer?

---

A potential one, but that's not my point.

Say you had a group of twenty people, ten men and ten women. Say then that you had a news report of five of them doing something newsworthy, like perhaps getting drunk and assaulting a policeman. The news report describes in detail three noteworthy contributions to the incident, attributed to Thomas, Richard and Harold. It further says that a family was involved at one point.

What could you conclude? You could definitely conclude that some men were assaulting the police. You could not definitely conclude that none of the women were involved, and the mention of the family implies that some of the women were sticking the boot in too, though does not conclusively prove it.

Likewise, believers being baptised does not prove that infants were not being baptised, and the households mentioned in the Bible suggest to me that infants probably were but this evidence is not conclusive.

Am I doing any better?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
but the problem with your argument now is that the scripture passages specifically state that it was those who believed that were baptised. They are not as vague as you seem to want to make them out to be.

---

quote:

---

Yes, in another place, unrecorded, they may have baptised infants - we don't know. I concede that. But, one could argue that because the bible doesn't say whether or not they baptised their cattle we may as well do that too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
You haven't addressed the argument about households, have you? Nothing suggests to me that a cow would be considered a member of the household. I don't know whether children were for certain, but if I had to guess I'd say they were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
You haven't addressed the argument about households, have you?

---

quote:

---

Psyduck, could you explain how being baptised, or not being baptised, is viewed in Reformed thought? Does it make any difference? This is the big problem for me with any form of Calvinism - nothing anybody does actually matters ultimately.

---

quote:

---

The problem I see with infant baptism from a Calvinistic point of view (though of course, I realise that Calvin himself taught infant baptism) is that if baptism itself changes one's status before God, it is no longer God who is at work for our salvation.

---

quote:

---

So, as an infant, we don't have the power to reject the gift. As an adult, as we become increasingly self-possessed, we gain the power to refuse grace and also the power to refuse baptism by refusing to turn up. There's a difference here - it's not that a child can't give consent, but rather that an adult can refuse by turning away from God, if you like.

---

quote:

---

Baptism is the sign of dying to sin, and rising to new life in Christ.

By water and the Holy Spirit Christ claims us as his own, washes us from sin, and sets us free from the power of death.

Here we know that we are made one with Christ, crucified and risen, members of his body, called to share his ministry in the world. In this sacrament the love of God is offered to each one of us. Though we cannot understand or explain it, we are called to accept that love with the openness and trust of a child. (C of S BCO 1994 emph mine. )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
Perhaps we are constantly misunderstadning each other, in which case we may have to abandon this in avoidance of ulcers and migraines, but are you suggesting that in the practice of infant baptism, the infant is a believer?

---

A potential one, but that's not my point.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Tradition is not considered a valid arguement by most of us who practice BB.

---

• have ensured some scriptural condemnation; and
• have taken some action earlier than 16th century to correct such an important abuse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
You haven't addressed the argument about households, have you? Nothing suggests to me that a cow would be considered a member of the household. I don't know whether children were for certain, but if I had to guess I'd say they were.

---

Yes i have.

There are two that i remember recorded in Acts (if i've missed some others, then please someone let us know). The households of Cornelius and the Phillipian jailer. In the accounts of both of these it is explicit that it is the believers who are baptised. If you want to suggest that infants were too then you are arguing against the record.

Regards
M

---

quote:

---

My reading of the long quote from the Westminster Confession above presents a Calvinism in which it is indeed baptism which confers grace - maybe, from the God's eye view at the end of all things it can be said that it only conferred grace there and then on the people who were to have grace conferred on them anyway, but the point is that from that perspective too, it did confer grace there and then.

---

quote:

---

Will you come and follow me if I but call your name?
Will you go where you don’t know and never be the same?
Will you let my love be shown, will you let my name be known,
Will you let my life be grown in you and you in me?

Will you leave yourself behind if I but call your name...?


Will you love the "you" you hide if I but call your name?
Will you quell the fear inside and never be the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
You haven't addressed the argument about households, have you? Nothing suggests to me that a cow would be considered a member of the household. I don't know whether children were for certain, but if I had to guess I'd say they were.

---

Yes i have.

There are two that i remember recorded in Acts (if i've missed some others, then please someone let us know). The households of Cornelius and the Phillipian jailer. In the accounts of both of these it is explicit that it is the believers who are baptised. If you want to suggest that infants were too then you are arguing against the record.

---

• of the baptism of infants (as members of a household), but I suggest that this is difficult in this case,
• of the baptism only of non-infants (if the second use of household excludes infants then it is more likely that the first excludes them as well
• that the meaning of "household" depends on context and the reader would be expected to understand the meaning intended, but I'm not sure where that gets us

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
As others have asked where is the evidence that the baptism of infants came centuries later? The whole households in Acts point towards infant baptism IMO. Even if, as I have heard some evangelicals claim, there were no infants in those households,*

---

I'm genuinely struggling to think of other examples of households being baptised then the two i mention - Cornelius and the Phillipian Jailer. It's not a case of evangelicals claiming, but the bible being clear in these two instances, that it is those who responded to the gospel who were baptised.

If there are other examples in Acts that clearly indicate differently, and i have forgotten them, please fogive me a genuine mistake.

Warm regards
M

---

quote:

---

It is a practice that devloped later (no-one knows for sure, but the evidence seems to indicate the practice began more than 200 years later) probably in response to a more devloped theology of original sin.

---

quote:

---

Secondly, St Polycarp who talked of having served the Lord for fourscore and six years (i.e 86) is often taken as evidence for infant baptism in the apostolic age.

I was also not talking about the pratice of baptising adults (which has always happened)** but of the theology of baptism held by believers' only baptists.

---

quote:

---

Tradition is not considered a valid arguement by most of us who practice BB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Different author to Acts of course

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I repeat the rest of my post below.
Secondly, St Polycarp who talked of having served the Lord for fourscore and six years (i.e 86) is often taken as evidence for infant baptism in the apostolic age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I repeat the rest of my post below.
Secondly, St Polycarp who talked of having served the Lord for fourscore and six years (i.e 86) is often taken as evidence for infant baptism in the apostolic age.

---

You seriously want to argue for infant baptism on the basis that some people read into this statement that Polycarp was infant baptised?

And you want to hold that up as a counter to specific discriptions in scripture of times when belivers alone were baptised?

I think i need you to clarify what you'd like me to respond to. Thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Now, if that was around and I had no teaching generally, just that superstition, no literacy, no understanding of Latin, Greek or Hebrew, I would definitely have my babies instantly baptised.

However, when people begin to understand things for themselves, maybe have serious teaching, then they may go back to old ways of doing things because they realise they are superior, more theologically correct in their view.

Just like we now realise that women and men are equal and able to work as whatever in the church. We messed up over centuries, but back at the beginning, women had positions of authority and the teaching and examples given from the bible allow us to understand in the 21st century that women can do what was forbidden them for centuries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Nice to see the old canard being rolled out to justify 16th century innovations. Historical garbage but comforting nonetheless...well to some.

The Tradition of those Churches who can claim to have been around since the time of the Apostles is that infants have always been baptised. There is not one shred of evidence, historical, traditional or scriptural, that this is not so. What evidence there is supports this view. Those Churches also teach (and, afaik, have always taught) that in baptism God works to bring us into a new relationship with Him, that of his adopted sons and daughters. If I believed that, be I a smyrnian parent, a mother in Charlemagne's empire, a saxon peasant in the 16th century or a space age "new-man", I'd want my baby baptised and, thanks be to God, the Church has always recognised this desire as legitimate.

I have no problem with baptising believers, but the idea that it is the only proper form of baptism relies on faulty exegesis, lousy history and a concept of baptism built on a reaction to medieval sacramental abuses. By all means hold the BOB view, if you want, but at least recognise its paternity.

---

quote:

---

What really gets to me is that both sides seem to delight in calling each other names.

---

quote:

---

Ow come on. You are going to justify behaviour on the basis that you've always done it (not that you can actually prove it either way)?

---

quote:

---

Trisagion - the baptists think you got it wrong for 1500 years. What is there not to understand about that? It is not a case of paternity or history or anything else. It is a difference in theology.

---

quote:

---

Please everyone stop trying to take the moral and intellectual high ground and at least try to understand that the thought processes behind the beliefs are quite different.

---

quote:

---

Otherwise this will quickly become a pointless discussion and/or a dead horse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
You are going to justify behaviour on the basis that you've always done it (not that you can actually prove it either way)?

---

quote:

---

What really gets to me is that both sides seem to delight in calling each other names.

---

quote:

---

Trisagion - the baptists think you got it wrong for 1500 years. What is there not to understand about that? It is not a case of paternity or history or anything else. It is a difference in theology.

---

quote:

---

Please everyone stop trying to take the moral and intellectual high ground and at least try to understand that the thought processes behind the beliefs are quite different. Otherwise this will quickly become a pointless discussion and/or a dead horse.

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:


The Tradition of those Churches who can claim to have been around since the time of the Apostles is that infants have always been baptised.

---

quote:

---

Psyduck - if you believe baptism is JUST something done by God for people and thus must be done to helpless infants - do you ever baptise believers who are able to choose whether to be baptised or not? And if so, why?

---

quote:

---

Baptism is the sign of dying to sin, and rising to new life in Christ.

By water and the Holy Spirit Christ claims us as his own, washes us from sin, and sets us free from the power of death.

Here we know that we are made one with Christ, crucified and risen, members of his body, called to share his ministry in the world. In this sacrament the love of God is offered to each one of us. Though we cannot understand or explain it, we are called to accept that love with the openness and trust of a child. (C of S BCO 1994 emph mine. )

---

quote:

---

I am fed up to the back teeth of churches claiming to be doing thing the way that the apostles did them without a shred of Scriptural evidence to prove it.

---

Me too!
 

---

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
Gospels:

John baptises confessed sinners.
John baptises Jesus.

Both adults, both following a confession (though it is not entirely clear -at least from the passage - why Jesus needed to be baptised).

Matthew 28:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Fairly clear, I would argue, that the order was to make disciples and then baptise them.

Mark 16:
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

Not sure that this fits neatly into either camp. But still the order is implied - belief, baptism, saved.

Acts 2:
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Same order - repentance then be baptised.

Acts 8:
Same sort of thing with Simon and the Eunuch

Acts 16:
Baptism of the whole household. No mention of children, however.

I'd argue this is ambiguous.

Acts 22:
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

Active - go, rise and be baptised.

1 Cor 1:
Paul talking about who he has baptised and problems resulting from it.

Not sure this is supportive of either position.

I Cor 12: We are all baptised into one body.

Might be supportive of the infant baptism argument.

1 Cor 15:

Don't understand the passage.

Gal 3:

Active again - you were baptised and have put on Christ. ISTM that this is nonsensical if someone has been baptised whilst still in ignorance.

Ephesians 4:

One baptism, not clear which or what.

1 Pet 3: Possibly more supportive of Psyduck's position.

So, to set my stall.

The biblical precident is patchy. It strikes me that most of the time it is assumed that everyone knows what is being talked about.

The norm, I would argue, is for adult baptism. It is clear to my mind that one believes, confesses and is baptised. The public acclamation of belief is necessary, otherwise why did Jesus not just go around baptising everyone? John was at the lake, but he only baptised those who came and confessed. There is no hint of a universal baptism.

There is no direct evidence that anyone is baptised who has not first made a statement of faith.

Regarding infant baptism, I would argue that it is what you make of it. So if you want to take the promises that someone has made on your behalf then all well and good.

On the other hand, baptising random children makes a mockery of the gospel, which calls for individuals to repent and change their ways.

C
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:


But I still don't understand why you asked the question, or what you meant by it. It sounded as though you thought I could only be true to my theology of grace by mugging people and baptizing them under duress! (I don't, by the way...)

---

I'm glad.

I asked because it seems to be a rather elastic theology of baptism - if someone is not capable of making a decision then you (the church/the parents) decide for them but if they can then it becomes a sign of them asking something from God. Which is, after all, simply the Baptist position.

I think your theology only works if it is saying at the very least, it is better to be baptised as a child, and it actually, ISTM, fits rather uncomfortably with someone becoming a Christian from a non-Christian background. Which is a weird, because ISTM that in the NT that was exactly what baptism was supposed to signify in the first place.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
So in other words, you're just ignoring my post of 0707hrs.

I note:

a) I'd dealt with John's baptism pretty fully there.

b) You take the separation of repentance and Baptism as meaning that the two are not separate. You take "repentance precedes baptism" as meaning "baptism=repentance". That's just incoherent.

c)

quote:

---

Acts 22:
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

Active - go, rise and be baptised.

---

quote:

---

Rom.6
[3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
[4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
1Cor.1
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Cor.10
[2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

1Cor.12
[13] For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
1Cor.15
[29] Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
Gal.3
[27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ

---

quote:

---

Eph.4
[5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Col.2
[12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Belivers' baptism is connected with a view of what it meant to be a human subject that began to become salient in the sixteenth century. There's all sorts of evidence that it's now beginning to fade away. We are all interconnected, and our lives are all bound together. I think we may be considerably closer to the ethos of the NT for the passing of the modern subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
So in other words, you're just ignoring my post of 0707hrs.

I note:

a) I'd dealt with John's baptism pretty fully there.

b) You take the separation of repentance and Baptism as meaning that the two are not separate. You take "repentance precedes baptism" as meaning "baptism=repentance". That's just incoherent.

---

quote:

---

c)

quote:

---

Acts 22:
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

Active - go, rise and be baptised.

---

Active apart from the verb! I'll look it up and parse it later. But it seems that this is akin to Leprechaun's assumption above, that even getting yourself to church to be baptized, walking to the font (or baptistry) any active human component at all, somehow destroys the sacramental understanding. (I think you could argue a lot from the voice of the verb!)

---

quote:

---

d) All the Pauline passages are at least incipiently sacramental. Here they are:

quote:

---

Rom.6
[3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
[4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
1Cor.1
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Cor.10
[2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

1Cor.12
[13] For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
1Cor.15
[29] Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
Gal.3
[27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ

---

Likewise Ephesians and Colossians:

quote:

---

Eph.4
[5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Col.2
[12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

---

and I Peter 3 is one source of the Noah typology of the "Flood Prayer" which is part of the baptismal rite, so I think we can take it as supporting a sacramental interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Basically I'd say you have pretty much the whole NT against a believers' baptism position, even if the "households" only included adults - some of these would inevitably have been adults who would have had no say. And they were baptized as a group. They took their identity from the "household", and that identity was now Christian.

---

quote:

---

As I say, you don't have to prove that the NT encompasses the baptism of children to be able to say that it doesn't support believers' baptism.

---

quote:

---

But if it doesn't support believers' baptism, what's the Biblical objection to baptizing children?

---

quote:

---

Belivers' baptism is connected with a view of what it meant to be a human subject that began to become salient in the sixteenth century. There's all sorts of evidence that it's now beginning to fade away. We are all interconnected, and our lives are all bound together. I think we may be considerably closer to the ethos of the NT for the passing of the modern subject.

---

quote:

---

it seems to be a rather elastic theology of baptism - if someone is not capable of making a decision then you (the church/the parents) decide for them but if they can then it becomes a sign of them asking something from God.

---

quote:

---

..a sign of them asking something from God.

---

quote:

---

Which is, after all, simply the Baptist position.

---

quote:

---

I think your theology only works if it is saying at the very least, it is better to be baptised as a child, and it actually, ISTM, fits rather uncomfortably with someone becoming a Christian from a non-Christian background.

---

quote:

---

Which is a weird, because ISTM that in the NT that was exactly what baptism was supposed to signify in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
On the other hand, baptising random children makes a mockery of the gospel, which calls for individuals to repent and change their ways.

---

quote:

---

Nope, I didn't ignore it. I think you are wrong. John's baptism is the same as all the other baptisms in the NT. Same pattern, same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
It's as though there wasn't aybody there before, in Christian terms. Would a baptist really want to disagree with that? I really don't want to misrepresent people, but I honestly don't think I am.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
To work backwards from there - the church/parents make that choice for the child - THEY confer grace on the child.

---

quote:

---

To work backwards from there - the church/parents make that choice for the child - THEY confer grace on the child.

---

quote:

---

The church becomes the arbiter of salvation because the church administers the saving rite.

---

quote:

---

The Tradition of those Churches who can claim to have been around since the time of the Apostles

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Trigasion:

quote:

---

The Tradition of those Churches who can claim to have been around since the time of the Apostles

---

I thought it was one church that had been around since the birthday of the church? One holy catholic and apostolic church.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Og: Thread Killer wrote:

quote:

---

Tradition is not considered a valid arguement by most of us who practice BB.

---

No, but if you're arguing about when a practice such as the baptism of children developed then one has to engage with the Church Fathers because their writings are the evidence for that period (during which the Canon of the NT was developing)

Carys

---

I am/was making more an observation then an arguement. I hear you, but for most who are using BB, only the "Bible" matters. The rest is considered subjective.

So, arguing using tradition and Church Fathers' writing is pointless as it presupposes a willingness to listen to those factors; that willingness is not there.
 

---

Posted by Halo (# 6933) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Halo:
Surely baptism of a baby is a different matter to baptism as an adult? A baby has no clue what is going on and is incapable of making a decision for themself, whereas an adult chooses to be baptised. What happens if the baby grows up and rejects God? Are they still 'baptised'? My understanding was that only believers should be baptised. Answers anyone?

---

I have a question instead. Are you an Arminian?

---

Arminian?!? No, what gave you that impression?
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Psyduck:

quote:

---

You are using a first-generation-Christian model to understand the whole life of the Church. But that's really the point. For a baptsit perspective, doesn't it always have to be a first-generation Christian perspective? Family, upbringing in the church, all of this Christianly really means nothing until you "take the plunge" (wonder if that's where that comes from? Never thought of it before!) Everything starts with conversion/baptism. It's as though there wasn't aybody there before, in Christian terms. Would a baptist really want to disagree with that? I really don't want to misrepresent people, but I honestly don't think I am.

---

Yes, you're right - that belief that there is only one generation of christians is foundational to the hanging on to only believer's baptism. It's the idea that every single person has to make their own decision to follow Christ. No-one else can do it in any way for another person.

Parents and the church are responsible for teaching and presenting the gospel, but cannot step in and affirm belief on a baby's or any other person's behalf. Each individual has their own freedom of choice.

This is probably as important for the argument for believer's baptism as looking at the NT and history. It might even be the modern (post-mediaeval) reason for believer's baptism to grow again as a habit.

I hadn't thought of this before either, Psyduck.

So a church that practices believer's baptism ought to be church where there is great freedom of choice and no bossing around. Unfortunately, that ain't always the case.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Trigasion:

quote:

---

The Tradition of those Churches who can claim to have been around since the time of the Apostles

---

I thought it was one church that had been around since the birthday of the church? One holy catholic and apostolic church.....

---

Indeed Daisymay and it subsists in the Catholic Church, that is the Church in communion with the successor of St Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

---

But that denomination of the historic church doesn't officially have me in communion with them - even though individual priests within that lot do .

I meant that we all belong to the church that goes back to the very beginnings. We do have, however, different traditions, many of which come and go.
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
At the risk of straying into Dead Horse territory, the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the Church.

Your second remark betrays a strange order. You say that the Catholic Church does not have you in communion with it. Doesn't that rather put you at the centre of the ecclesial universe?
 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
You are using a first-generation-Christian model to understand the whole life of the Church. But that's really the point. For a baptsit perspective, doesn't it always have to be a first-generation Christian perspective? Family, upbringing in the church, all of this Christianly really means nothing until you "take the plunge" (wonder if that's where that comes from? Never thought of it before!) Everything starts with conversion/baptism. It's as though there wasn't aybody there before, in Christian terms. Would a baptist really want to disagree with that? I really don't want to misrepresent people, but I honestly don't think I am.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Halo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Halo:
Surely baptism of a baby is a different matter to baptism as an adult? A baby has no clue what is going on and is incapable of making a decision for themself, whereas an adult chooses to be baptised. What happens if the baby grows up and rejects God? Are they still 'baptised'? My understanding was that only believers should be baptised. Answers anyone?

---

I have a question instead. Are you an Arminian?

---

Arminian?!? No, what gave you that impression?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Tradition is not considered a valid arguement by most of us who practice BB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
History is important to many who do BB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:


What happens in our (C of S) view is that the love and grace that God had always intended this child to have is given to it.

---

quote:

---

This is only so if salvation is tied to baptism so that unbaptised is damned. Or at least, not saved.

---

quote:

---

No doubt some baptists - maybe most - would say that they didn't believe that such exclusion necessarily involved damnation, but isn't that precisely the same ecclesiastical control you are protesting about?

---

quote:

---

And why is it given? Because the parents take the child, and the church uses the correct formula to dispense it.

---

quote:

---

Well, I can't imgaine why that would happen, but even if it did, it's not half as serious, because baptism does not, in the BB tradition, confer any special (if you don't like "saving") grace.

---

quote:

---

Similarly, the candidate is able to have explained the morality and lifestyle of being in receipt of grace should lead to.

---

quote:

---

Then they can decide if it is for them or not. You said this as much about baptising adults.
But for some reason, infants in your congregation are not to have this same dignity extended to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
At the risk of straying into Dead Horse territory, the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
At the risk of straying into Dead Horse territory, the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the Church.

---

Gee, Trisagion. Father Gregory says his church is the Church and not a denomination. Hm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
SO people don't have to profess their faith in Christ and get baptized in order to be saved? If that's so, fair enough.

---

quote:

---

In other words, you're saying that God's love and grace are conditional.

---

quote:

---

Basically my problem with all this is my problem with Arminianism generally. If you're willing to save yourself, God is happy to provide all the equipment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Doesn't that rather put you at the centre of the ecclesial universe?

---

So I might be a reincarnation of Mary?

 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Tradition is not considered a valid arguement by most of us who practice BB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
History is important to many who do BB.

---

Do you think of tradition as something distinct from history then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No priests or ecclesiastical hoops to jump through.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Gee, Trisagion. Father Gregory says his church is the Church and not a denomination. Hm.

---

• he's right;
• I'm right;
• we're both right;or
• we're both wrong.

He believes the first, I the second. The third seems to be a logical nonsense and the fourth what you imply. I still don't see the point of your remark.

[ 24. March 2005, 17:39: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Trisagion:

It was meant to be gently humorous and as such has very little point. I do not dispute that both the Eastern and Western churches believe themselves to be The Church, and are therefore not to their minds, denominations.

However, you can't deny surely that there are those of us who, though belonging to a schismatic step-child of The Church (whichever one it is), do believe ourselves to be part of the Church Universal, or whatever group is formed from all trinitarian Christians. And that when we say "the Church", that's what many of us are talking about, not Holy Mother Rome.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
TANGENT//Trisagion:

quote:

---

The third seems to be a logical nonsense

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
TANGENT//Trisagion:

quote:

---

The third seems to be a logical nonsense

---

Why? (Isn't it what would be retrospectively be being said to be the case if East and West were ever reconciled?)

---

Perhaps, but as things stand, the statements might be seen as mutually exclusive.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
So they aren't both 'it' now, but it's possible that at some point in the future it will turn out to be the case that, notwithstanding that, they both actually were 'it' now... Looking back...
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No priests or ecclesiastical hoops to jump through.

---

I certainly don't recommend that anyone jump through a priest. You'd probably annoy him.

Anyway, as usual Mudfrog knows better than everyone else. How nice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I haven't said that anyone has got it wrong, nor that I know better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
At least I haven't said that my church isn't a denomination, it is THE church!
That strongly suggests that the other denominations are not the Church at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
At least I haven't said that my church isn't a denomination, it is THE church!
That strongly suggests that the other denominations are not the Church at all.

---

Correct.

---

So when we baptise people we are not welcoming them into the Church? Tsk, tsk,... the OP doesn't mean anything then at all... presumably it's talking about "denominations" not The Real Church.

You're not the Pope IRL are you, Trisagion? He has points of view similar to yours.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All the above posts show one reason why The Salvation Army - part of The Church - ceased baptising babies. None of you can agree on what baptism means.

It is far simpler to say that we are saved by grace through faith - that it is a transaction of the heart by the Holy Spirit - and that there is not a ritual or ceremony on this earth that can convey saving or sanctifying grace.

I cannot believe that our Lord came to bring such a difficult and controversial means of salvation. Faith is such a simple thing and God welcomes all those into is family who simply trust him to save them.

No ceremonies or sacraments. No priests or ecclesiastical hoops to jump through.

Just a childlike and grateful faith in the cross and in the resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...All I am saying is that there is a simpler way than the complicated twists and turns of baptismal theology and practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
the Scylla of Trisagion's paradoxical ecclesiological solipsism

---

quote:

---

For the rest of us - we have this sacrament,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

Anyhoo....

For the rest of us - we have this sacrament, and we wonder what it means. And we wonder how to apply it. And we do our theologising about the way we apply it. Today is Good Friday. That could be a good time to take a fresh grasp.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
The public witness, and the declaration of faith aspect of Baptism, which is such an important part of my Baptist tradition, seems not to fit well with the understanding of baptism as an expression of God's prevenient grace. I remember being part of a group writing a formal statement about baptism. We said that in baptism believers take their stand in solidarity with Christ, but also that in baptism the initiative is God's. But there's much in Christianity that holds different truths in tense proximity.

---

quote:

---

I feel helpless and depressed that the means of entry to the Church should divide us so sharply and uncharitably. My natural instinct is to say that the sacrament of baptism is rightly beyond our understanding, and does not really belong to the Church. We perform it as instructed, and should do so with humility.

---

You've expressed a dilemma quite well here, hatless.

sabine

[ 25. March 2005, 17:10: Message edited by: sabine ]
 

---

Posted by lazystudent (# 5172) on :
 
Loathed as I am to refer back to the OP, I have been asked by the friend in question to point out that the situation in the church in Japan was merely a catalyst, not a motivation, for baptism. She and I both know she has been thinking about it for some time, and would not take it so lightly - but I had to set the record straight, so there goes. My fault for being so clumsy!

Anyhoo, she was baptised on Tuesday (YAY!) having contented herself that she was 'blessed' rather than baptised as a child. Good news all round, I think. She was interested (if a little overwhelmed!) to read your comments. Or at least the first few hundred of them... <g>

And back to the action we go. I broke up from school yesterday, and my brain is in the process of shutting down, so you'll excuse me if I don't put on my theological hat and join you. <yawn> Now, where did I put that Saviour? Third allotment from the right, follow the path between the rosebeds...

[Acknowledged culpability]

[ 25. March 2005, 21:22: Message edited by: lazystudent ]
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
This thread would have been much shorter if, when lazystudent posed the question, someone had suggested his friend contact the church in the location she grew up and check the baptismal register in the years that her parents think she may have been baptised.

 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
This thread would have been much shorter if, when lazystudent posed the question, someone had suggested his friend contact the church in the location she grew up and check the baptismal register in the years that her parents think she may have been baptised.

---

quote:

---

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).

---

quote:

---

I would hate for anyone to think they were redeemed simply because a man sprinkled water on them when they were a baby.

---

quote:

---

I believe that a major cause of nominality is the idea that people are Christians by virtue of religious actions performed by others

---

quote:

---

Christian faith is an intentioned, conscious and spiritual transaction between God and the heart of a man, woman or child.

---

quote:

---

Any activity performed after this faith event has occurred is incidental, and is a means of witness, not a means of grace

---

quote:

---

Any activity performed after this faith event has occurred is incidental, and is a means of witness, not a means of grace

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0