Thread: Purgatory: Infant baptism! Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001123

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
By popular request:

What is it? How does it work? Who can perform it? How old should the infant be? Or is infant baptism just totally wrong for a myriad of reasons? Discuss! Debate! Hold forth your views! (And let us see how long it takes us to end up in Dead Horses... )

[ 03. September 2003, 21:34: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

---

Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 
Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid then not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.
I can't quote chapter and verse, but we all know where it comes from.
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
I don't believe in infant baptism as I think it is very important for people to make up their own minds about whether they want to be Christians or not. Baptism symbolises dying to sin and rising to new life which the Reformed type in me wants to say comes by grace but through believing in Jesus. Babies cannot do this. More to the point, I don't really believe in original sin either so I wouldn't have any difficulty in saying that babies really need to repent and believe in the first place anyway, until they get older and start sinning. So, as Duchess once very memorably said, INSTANT HEAVEN for babies.

I eagerly await people to come and slap me down as I am well aware these are just my own views and many onboard would not agree!
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by shareman:
Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid then not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.
I can't quote chapter and verse, but we all know where it comes from.

---

Do you mean if we withold baptism from kids we are not letting them become Christians or take a role in the church?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Infant baptism is valid but usually undesirable.

Valid, because salvation does not depend on the intelligence or knowledge of the saved person, and God is not bound by time.

Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.

And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.

As pseudo-Christian folk religion gets rarer, the second of these reasons gets weaker - and we could have an argument about infant baptism being a useful occasion for evangelism.

Which ends you up in the position that many people I know are in that Christian parents often don't have their children baptised, and non-Christians do!

My daughter was not baptised as an infant. She chose baptism for herself later. Which is good
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.

---

quote:

---

And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
I don't believe in infant baptism as I think it is very important for people to make up their own minds about whether they want to be Christians or not. Baptism symbolises dying to sin and rising to new life which the Reformed type in me wants to say comes by grace but through believing in Jesus. Babies cannot do this. More to the point, I don't really believe in original sin either so I wouldn't have any difficulty in saying that babies really need to repent and believe in the first place anyway, until they get older and start sinning. So, as Duchess once very memorably said, INSTANT HEAVEN for babies.

I eagerly await people to come and slap me down as I am well aware these are just my own views and many onboard would not agree!

---

quote:

---

I don't believe in infant baptism as I think it is very important for people to make up their own minds about whether they want to be Christians or not

---

quote:

---

Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.

And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
Back to the OP...instant heaven became a long doc that John MacArthur wrote with verses to support it. I can make it short and sweet and say that:
1) King David did not weep for his baby that died but said 'i will go to the baby' (paraphrase)
King David DID however fall apart when evil son plotting to kill daddy who slept with daddy's comcubine on the roof was wasted.

---

quote:

---

2) Many argue babies are not able to discern sin yet so the LAW does not apply to them.

---

quote:

---

Sean D wrote:
I don't believe in infant baptism as I think it is very important for people to make up their own minds about whether they want to be Christians or not

---

You appear to be saying that once somebody is baptised as an infant, they are trapped into being a Christian for the rest of their lives, whether they want to or not. This is absurd. People DO make up their minds about whether they want to be Christians or not, whether they are baptised as infants or not. So this can hardly count as a reason not to baptise infants.

Next?
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Ok, David stopped weeping, started eating and resumed normal activities albeit he knew he was going to hell and his baby was there too so he would join him.

Then when older son died, he flipped out since older son too was going to hell.

Yes, this line of reasoning makes perfect sense.

I believe David was a man clearly destined to go to heaven which would turn into another tangent.

I think that Luke 10:16 and other verses say "You reject Jesus, you reject God." A baby is not able to even fathom who Jesus is.

Of course they cry, and wail, demanding things. It is all they know, they can not speak. They are born with a sinful nature but they are born rejecting God? I don't think so. I think it takes age and experience to do that.

BTW, links of MarArthur on Larry King Live in case anyone is interested. Good divisive line up and interesting.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Ooops. I apologize for the "Next?". I forgot I was in Purgatory. Spending too much time in Hell lately.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
They are born with a sinful nature but they are born rejecting God? I don't think so. I think it takes age and experience to do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
They are born with a sinful nature but they are born rejecting God? I don't think so. I think it takes age and experience to do that.

---

So why shouldn't they be baptised?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.

---

Why do you consider this important?

quote:

---

And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.

---

This leads me to ask of those here who are priests, ministers, etc. who do infant baptism: Do you do infant baptisms for anybody, or only those of believing and practicing parents? And is this by your own decision, or that of a bishop/council/etc. higher up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
I myself was baptised as a baby, as was the faith I was born into. But as an adult, I wanted to show the world my joy in finding Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shareman:
Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid then not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.
I can't quote chapter and verse, but we all know where it comes from.

---

Do you mean if we withold baptism from kids we are not letting them become Christians or take a role in the church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

Also, if we bapise infants, we sabotage their chances of being baptised within their own church community, as denominations like the CofE and CofS, think that if someone wants believers' baptism, they are actually being rebaptised, and this often messes up their relationship with their church and their families.

---

quote:

---

Confirmation is a much less exciting and celebratory ceremony than baptism (immersion type) and doesn't have the same symbolism.

---

quote:

---

I don't think baptism is "necessary for salvation" so a child who dies unbaptised is fine.

---

quote:

---

And I don't think you need to be grown up to choose baptism; five-year-olds may be absolutely clear about belonging to Jesus, as much as fifteen or fifty-year-olds.

---

quote:

---

I do think a thanksgiving/dedication ceremony should take place so that the parents and the congregation can take on the responsibility of praying for and blessing the baby and encouraging them as they grow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
People should have the chance to choose for themselves as baptism is so important. It's a celebration of our decision to follow and commit ourselves to God. Babies can't make that decision.

---

quote:

---

Does the problem lie with the the church who originally baptised them, or the church that is now saying that baptism was invalid?

---

quote:

---

It doesn't have to be - having the Bishop in to lay on hands can be every bit as celebratory, and the 'symbolism' of regularly welcoming new children into the family of God is very special.

---

quote:

---

I doubt many people do think baptism is necessary for salvation anymore, but that doesn't mean it isn't still helpful.

---

quote:

---

But will they still feel that was an informed choice when they are 10, or 15, or 20?

---

quote:

---

So why not go the whole hog, and welcome them into the Church properly, as God ordained?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
People should have the chance to choose for themselves as baptism is so important. It's a celebration of our decision to follow and commit ourselves to God. Babies can't make that decision.

---

If you view baptism as a celebration of a decision you've made, then you'd certainly want to wait until after you make the decision to celebrate it.

But what if baptism is the physical act through which one is born into the Kingdom of God? What if going down into the water is the means by which you put to death "the old man" and coming up out of the water is the means by which you are raised from death to life? What if it is in fact the means by which God makes you a Christian? By refusing baptism to a child, you are standing between your child and the Lifegiver. Of course, God can go around you. But why would you make him do so? Why would you not cooperate with him by bringing your child to the source of Life?

If your child has a disease that is killing his body, and you know the cure for that disease, you don't wait until he's old enough to choose the cure for himself. You take your child to the doctor and ask the doctor to treat your child, to save his life.

So why would you wait to bring your child to the Church for baptism?

---

I wouldn't wait, and I didn't. My children were dedicated as babies and made the decision to be baptised themselves when they were old enough, and after they had made the decision for themselves to follow Christ.

I don't think that the death and life experience happens at the time of baptism - this is where we differ- I think it happens before, and baptism is the symbolic acting out and witness to it.

I would bring my child to the source of life by trying to live out my christian life with them in the family (and regularly repenting of messing up) by teaching them about God and helping them to pray and learn the bible story, taking them to church till they were old enough to decide for themselves... and I think they they and God together in co-operation make them a Christian.
 

---

Posted by JHG (# 3464) on :
 
This is a potential dead horse topic, but i thought I'd add my expereince. i was baptised as an infant (Methodist Church). The majority of Christians baptise infants. I grew up in area where the majority practice of Christianity was placed on its head as i was surrounded by Anabaptists growing up. Throughout my childhood i was continually bombarded with the concept that one is not a "real" Christian until they accept the Lord and are baptised at the "age of accountability." Unlike some of the children around me I never submitted to "rebaptism." I cherish my baptism and i am glad i have never known a day in my life when i was not "grafted onto the body of Christ."
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
I think there are a lot of cultural factors that weigh in here to influence how we see IB practitioners vs. BB practitioners. If I may generalize, while not forgetting the dangers therein: Most of the churches that practice IB (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) are or have been state churches in Christian countries where infant baptism would have been a normal thing at birth whether or not the parents intended to give the child a Christian upbringing.

Most of the churches that practice only BB have tended to be Protestant churches whose orientation is more that of a community than a public utility. (I hope no one bristles at this; I think it's a reasonable way of stating it, and I now belong to one of those "public utility" churches. This isn't a value judgment, but an observation of different sociological orientations.)

Therefore, it wouldn't be surprising if (to make up some numbers for the sake of argument ) 80% of those baptized in a BB church stayed in it, while 20% of those baptized as infants in an IB church stayed in it--since many of the parents baptizing their infants in the IB church never had any intention of being faithful members, but were doing this as a rite of passage (instead of a rite of faith).

I think this situation influences people to believe that infant baptism is lifeless and useless. If we restricted our view of infant baptism to only those baptisms where both parents were faithful to their church and fully intended to bring up their child in that church, I suggest that a different picture might emerge.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I see confirmation as just having a time-delay between having the water part and the promises part. As God (on another thread) has been described as being outside time, I don't think that delay matters as much as we like to think it does.
I never had a problem personally with the time delay, although I had to stick up for myself when challenged as a teenager by people who were very determined that all people should have a 'proper' baptism as an adult believer.
When it came to my own children, I was aware of this ambivalence in beliefs and so I compromised: they were baptised at the age of 10 by their request, a few days before being confirmed. It seemed in their case the right thing to do - they are old enough to remember their baptism and took it very seriously, but were technically still children.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHG:
This is a potential dead horse topic, but i thought I'd add my expereince.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
What is there that states this particular sacrament has to happen as soon as possible after birth?

---

2000 years of collected wisdom.
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
I'm with Og (1st post) and Mousethief (last post) on this one. In the Roman Catholic Church we have First Communion for older children and confirmations for adults.
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
Lordy.

Been there. Done that. Bought the t-shirt. Got the tattoo.

The Offspring was baptized on the Feast of the Epiphany when he was six days old. (Some friends suggested that we name him "Jesus" with the hispanic pronunciation (Hay-soos) in honor or his natal day, but we demurred.) A friend of mine, hearing the story, agreed, laughing. "That would have been the unkindest cut of all," he said.

He made his first communion as a toddler when he became so fascinated with the mechanics of distribution that he was no longer interested in any blessing that didn't include the Meal. He wanted the Cookie, too.

I suppose, given our situation, that there might be some romantic regret in his mother and me that he didn't "come to faith" on his own and asked to be baptized so he could weep when he went forward. But the reality is that there was never a time when he wasn't surrounded by the "great cloud of witness." Consequently, it would be ridiculous if he didn't consider God an "old family friend" who didn't need much of an introduction.

He has said as much to us on several occasions. He told his mother one time that there wasn't a time in his life that he hadn't felt loved by God. There were a handful when he hadn't felt loved by us, but that was another matter entirely....

Early baptism wasn't an easy decision for us. His mother believed that he needed to be of an age of decision so he could understand the blessing that he was receiving, while I pointed out that just about every Christian I knew of any stripe was absolutely clueless about the depth of grace they had received at baptism, so it really made no difference at what point the sacrament was administered.

God bless her. Mrs. tomb chose to defer (I believe she used the biblical word "submit") to me. It was a terrifying moment. Our joint commitment to raising the Offspring in the Church and our promises to God, to each other, and to him were the sort of solemn ones that are impossible to abrogate. And if they failed, there was no one to blame but ourselves.

At eighteen, the Offspring is a level-headed kid. He's just as self-absorbed as any person that age, but he's also active in the parish. No one will convince me that the sacramental character of his baptism and the regular reception of the Eucharist didn't contribute to his formation a lot more than my threats to drown him or tie him up in the basement ever did.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Tomorrow I am baptizing two babies. At each baptism I will preach a short homily which takes up the question of what we're doing when we baptize an infant. Next week (since I drew the short straw at the curates' training day) I get to give an overview of CofE practice and theology of baptism to a bunch of young German pastors and my fellow curates, some of whom are adherents of believers' baptism. I am really grateful for the views expressed in this thread, which have helped me, yet again, clarify things in my own mind. Just one thing: where the heck does Luther say that people who want to be rebaptized should go and do it? It doesn't sound a bit like him.
 

---

Posted by ReVoltaire (# 4351) on :
 
OK, I’ll weigh in with the Presby view, which is what I ascribe to. Here’s the facts:
The Book of Order states “Children of believers are to be baptized without undue delay, but without undue haste.” It’s a serious commitment, and so while it shouldn’t be put off; it also shouldn’t be done without full consideration.

In response to the objection that infants don’t know that they are being baptized, we believe that “The Baptism of children witnesses to the truth that God's love claims people before they are able to respond in faith.” Book of Order, again The theological basis for this is long and dreary and a whole 'nother thread. (OK, I admit it, I'm just too tired to start looking up scripture )

Baptism is a confession of faith made by parents, and a commitment to raise their child in faith with the help and support of the church. The church then promises to help and guide the child in faith. It signifies the beginning of life in Christ, not its completion, and so the effect of it is seen to be lifelong. It’s not considered a guarantee to heaven, nor is it guaranteed that if a child (or anyone else) dies before being baptized they will not go to heaven. (Predestination ROCKS!) It should never done in private—it is considered a covenant between the church and the family and so should be witnessed and celebrated by all. Although members who were baptized in other churches are accepted without the need to be rebaptised; we don’t baptize children who are not going to be a part of the church, because it wouldn’t honor the commitment made. All baptisms have to be approved by the session of the congregation, and preformed by the pastor. And like the CoE et al., confirmation/membership vows are seen as a personal confession of faith. They are also followed by a commitment from the congregation to share faith with the member.

Just last week, we actually had to turn down a family that attends a different church in town that only performs adult baptisms but wanted their baby baptized. We turned them down kindly, but couldn't do it because the commitment between the parents and the congregation would have been meaningless.
 

---

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
Thinking covenantally about this issue, it seems to me that the pattern in scripture is that children born to 'covenant members' (if I may put it that way) are born into the covenant, and as they grow up may make decisions (in theology or by actions) that take them out of the covenant.
Children born to 'non-covenant members' need to make decisions to enter the covenant.

Also, in 1 Corinthians 10,

quote:

---

1 Cor. 10:1-2 (ESV)
I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, [2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

---

quote:

---

where the heck does Luther say that people who want to be rebaptized should go and do it? It doesn't sound a bit like him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
OK, I'm going to sound like a hyper-calvinist or Jansenist or Augustimian or whatever, but I've noticed on this thread a lot of talk about our decision and our choice, but little sense of "You did not choose me; I chose you" or "God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world."

---

Hey! That's what I said. Only not so pretty
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
Trying to clarify thinking slightly...

Let us suppose that you have two sets of parents. One set decide to have their child baptised, the other set decides not to.

The two children die.

What happens to the children?

Or, mis-quoting an earlier poster...

Because I'm was baptised as an infant does it make me (more of) a Christian than if I hadn't been? Does it affect the way in which God views me?
 

---

Posted by Balaam's Asteroid (# 4543) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Because I'm was baptised as an infant does it make me (more of) a Christian than if I hadn't been? Does it affect the way in which God views me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.

---

That's why the CofE has confirmation - where you confirm the vows made on your behalf by your parents yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.

---

That's why the CofE has confirmation - where you confirm the vows made on your behalf by your parents yourself.

---

Er, no.

At Confirmation the Bishops confirms your Baptism.

Other stuff may happen as well, but that is the essence of Confirmation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Trying to clarify thinking slightly...

Let us suppose that you have two sets of parents. One set decide to have their child baptised, the other set decides not to.

The two children die.

What happens to the children?

---

That's God's call, not ours.

Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?

I do believe that the sacraments are a means by which God helps us to be what he wants us to be. I don't know about you, but I need all the help I can get, and would like the same for my children, if and when He blesses us with any.

[fixed code]

[ 14. June 2003, 16:11: Message edited by: Scot ]
 

---

Posted by ReVoltaire (# 4351) on :
 
What Sean said.
 

---

Posted by Balaam's Asteroid (# 4543) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean:
Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam's Asteroid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean:
Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?

---

But that would turn the sacraments into some sort of magic.

Abracadabra, you're saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Infant baptism is valid but usually undesirable.

Valid, because salvation does not depend on the intelligence or knowledge of the saved person, and God is not bound by time.

Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.

And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.

As pseudo-Christian folk religion gets rarer, the second of these reasons gets weaker - and we could have an argument about infant baptism being a useful occasion for evangelism.

Which ends you up in the position that many people I know are in that Christian parents often don't have their children baptised, and non-Christians do!

My daughter was not baptised as an infant. She chose baptism for herself later. Which is good

---

Ken
My views exactly!

In the C of E we're stuck with infant baptism so I suppose we just have to make the use of it. I know some churches who insist on an Alpha course or equivalent as a condition of performing the baptism and this strickes me as very sensible.

In my experience believers baptisms are much more powerful, meaningful experiences than confirmation. It is regrettable that infant baptism can deny people that experience.

I know of one Anglican church which did reaffirmations of baptismal views by immersion - basically like a full baptism except with the priest saying "I reaffirm your baptismal vows..." rather than "I baptise you". Not sure what the legal/theological basis was for this though.
 

---

Posted by mimsey (# 3757) on :
 
My baptism, as a baby, is very important to me. I believe that in it, I received the promises from my parents and Godparents to bring me up as a Christian; the promises of other Christians to welcome me into the church; and the blessing of those promises by God.

However, I think that the reason I still hold so strongly to my infant baptism is that my parents and Godparents truly believed and kept those promises. I think that if my baptism had just been a formality, and if my parents and Godparents were not Christians, then I would want to be re-baptised at this point in my life. I don't, because I understand and believe that the promises as well as the sacrament were true and "worked" for me.

I was confirmed when I was ten. Looking back, I see that it was too early, and I'm not sure that I would allow my child to be confirmed that early; then again, I do remember that at the time, I was very eager to do it, and did truly believe that I knew what was going on. Once again, even if it was possible, I wouldn't be confirmed again now just because I think I understand more. Christianity is a progressive thing in many senses: I'm certain people can be saved before they've grasped the last detail. If I was using confirmation solely to proclaim my own belief, I would have wanted to do it again at 15, and probably yet again now! But it was far more about God choosing me, a blessing which did not disappear whatever happened to my faith, and which will not disappear now. If I want to re-confirm my belief publically for some reason, I'll give a testimony before my church; telling people that you believe doesn't need a sacrament or ceremony.

I know plenty of people who were baptised as infants, and chose to be baptised again as teenaged new Christians. I think that's up to them. I would want to baptise my own children as infants, and if they felt as teenagers or adults that they wanted to be baptised instead of being confirmed, I don't think I'd have too much of a problem with that. Watching them give their lives to Jesus would be enough for me, however they chose to do it.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.

---

That's why the CofE has confirmation - where you confirm the vows made on your behalf by your parents yourself.

---

Er, no.

At Confirmation the Bishops confirms your Baptism.

Other stuff may happen as well, but that is the essence of Confirmation.

---

I thought it was the Holy Ghost doing the confirming, but there you go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Trying to clarify thinking slightly...

Let us suppose that you have two sets of parents. One set decide to have their child baptised, the other set decides not to.

The two children die.

What happens to the children?

---

That's God's call, not ours.

Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?

I do believe that the sacraments are a means by which God helps us to be what he wants us to be. I don't know about you, but I need all the help I can get, and would like the same for my children, if and when He blesses us with any.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean:
Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?

---

quote:

---

In my experience believers baptisms are much more powerful, meaningful experiences than confirmation. It is regrettable that infant baptism can deny people that experience.

---

quote:

---

So baptism has no efficacy? Or Baptism has efficacy?

---

quote:

---

However, I think that the reason I still hold so strongly to my infant baptism is that my parents and Godparents truly believed and kept those promises. I think that if my baptism had just been a formality, and if my parents and Godparents were not Christians, then I would want to be re-baptised at this point in my life. I don't, because I understand and believe that the promises as well as the sacrament were true and "worked" for me.

---

quote:

---

Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?

---

quote:

---

Section 1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

---

quote:

---

But there is a difference between necessary for salvation and effective for salvation.

Would anyone suggest that baptism is the latter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?

---

Perhaps not on this thread, but on the Believers' Baptism thread, the phrase 'generally necessary for salvation' has been used. And that is what I hold.

I think the Roman Catholic Catechism puts it well

quote:

---

Section 1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

---

Carys

---

• Sign of Gods grace
• Witness to the faith of the baptised/church/parents/someone else
• Joining the church/grafting into the Church
• Commitment by baptised/church/parents/someone else to follow Christ
• Repentance of sins
• Symbolic of death and resurrection in Christ
• Ummm... must be more

quote:

---

my baptism, wherin I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven

A Catechism, The Book of Common Prayer

---

quote:

---

That's why the CofE has confirmation - where you confirm the vows made on your behalf by your parents yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, no.
At Confirmation the Bishops confirms your Baptism.
Other stuff may happen as well, but that is the essence of Confirmation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was the Holy Ghost doing the confirming, but there you go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean:
If you look at the key bit of the confirmation service, it is quite clear:
(from the ASB, because that's whats to hand

The Bishop lays hishands on the head of each candidate saying
Confrim, O Lord, your servant N with your Holy Spirit

---

Confirm, even.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:


Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.

---

Ken
My views exactly!

In my experience believers baptisms are much more powerful, meaningful experiences than confirmation. It is regrettable that infant baptism can deny people that experience.

I know of one Anglican church which did reaffirmations of baptismal views by immersion - basically like a full baptism except with the priest saying "I reaffirm your baptismal vows..." rather than "I baptise you". Not sure what the legal/theological basis was for this though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian S:
In the C of E we're stuck with infant baptism so I suppose we just have to make the use of it. I know some churches who insist on an Alpha course or equivalent as a condition of performing the baptism and this strickes me as very sensible.

In my experience believers baptisms are much more powerful, meaningful experiences than confirmation. It is regrettable that infant baptism can deny people that experience.

---

quote:

---

Having never had a believers baptism, I can't comment on that - but I can say that my confirmation was a powerful, meaningful experience. I do not think that you can say 'one is more pwerful' as they are both times when you are making a public commitment to God. I have been to both sorts of services, and although I prefer confirmations (I enjoy the liturgy and the sense of tradition) I have found believers baptism services to be moving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

quote:

---

That's why the CofE has confirmation - where you confirm the vows made on your behalf by your parents yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, no.
At Confirmation the Bishops confirms your Baptism.
Other stuff may happen as well, but that is the essence of Confirmation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was the Holy Ghost doing the confirming, but there you go.

---

When I was getting ready for confirmation, the vicar emphasised strongly that the candidates were the ones who were confirming the choices and promises the parents had made. Given that our church anoints babies as well as pours water over them, then they must believe that they receive the Holy Spirit then, and so almost all the confirmation ceremony is kind of repeating what the parents and god-parents did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam's Asteroid:


I don't think anyone with a real faith believes that. But there is a problem with those of the margins of Christianity who see the rites as a magic formula.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Mimsey wrote:

quote:

---

However, I think that the reason I still hold so strongly to my infant baptism is that my parents and Godparents truly believed and kept those promises. I think that if my baptism had just been a formality, and if my parents and Godparents were not Christians, then I would want to be re-baptised at this point in my life. I don't, because I understand and believe that the promises as well as the sacrament were true and "worked" for me.

---

But would it not have 'worked' had your parents not believed? Would God have not kept his promises?

---

I think Carys you have missed the point here, Mimsey is not saying that the promises of God aren't always true, as they always are, but that the promises of her parents and God-parents were true, and that this made it all the more important and valid for her. And on this I agree with her. The ceremony is (in my opinion not hers ) more for the parents than the child, it is where they make the choice to bring the child up to know the ways of the Lord, and to have dedicated people to tell them of the gracious works of God from generation to generation. The sprinkling bit's just for fun

No sorry to be a bit disrespectful, I do apologise, but if you had no idea that Christians had been dunking kids for a very long time it would seriously have a Rev Gerald ring to it (his involuntary spirit-u-all super soaker baptisms).

It's just that I have had both, infant and adult baptism, and I would never want to deprive my children of the latter. Perhaps I would be happier about it if I didn't see confirmation in the established churches being treated like such a joke these days (altho I had a school confirmation so perhaps that had something to do with it). I am not against infant baptism, I just don't see the point in it (apart from the dedication part, that is very important). I am however against stopping people being dunked when of an age to choose as a result of being dunked by their parents. I think that is most unfair, as baptism by water is a wonderful gift for a new Christian, and to have to leave a church in order to do it is not on (I kno of people who have had this problem, an entire family became Christian and most of them weren't allowed to be baptised)

I have had this argument with my ladyfriend many a time, and it does upset me so, and there is a part of me that wants to ignore all that I have been shown about baptism and all I have learnt about it in order to conform, but all the arguments I have been given fall apart very easily. Why is it important to have a sacrament at the beginning of a life? If it is important does it imply that it is inferiour to just be dedicated? Please may someone answer these questions for me, and give me some meaty reasons why I should desire my children to be christened.

I do apologise if I have seemed rude or disjointed, I am tired, it is hot, and I have a head ache.

Tiffer xx
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Churches which practise believer's baptism usually feel a need to have a service for babies, variously understood and described as Dedication, Presentation, Thanksgiving and Blessing.

Churches which practise infant baptism usually feel a need to have a service or rite for young people, such as Confirmation.

There seem to be recognised deficiencies in each form of baptism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
I think both forms of baptism are valid.

I happen to believe that the Eucharist should be open to all members of the church family, and baptism is a sign of entering that family and becoming a disciple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean:
If you see baptism sacrementaly - i.e. as primarily God doing something - then it makes perfect sense to baptise infants.

If you see it symbolically - primarily as the baptised person doing something - then it makes more sense to leave till later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Churches which practise believer's baptism usually feel a need to have a service for babies, variously understood and described as Dedication, Presentation, Thanksgiving and Blessing.

Churches which practise infant baptism usually feel a need to have a service or rite for young people, such as Confirmation.

There seem to be recognised deficiencies in each form of baptism.

---

quote:

---

I have been baptised three times, but that is another story ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
Thinking covenantally about this issue, it seems to me that the pattern in scripture is that children born to 'covenant members' (if I may put it that way) are born into the covenant, and as they grow up may make decisions (in theology or by actions) that take them out of the covenant.
Children born to 'non-covenant members' need to make decisions to enter the covenant.

Also, in 1 Corinthians 10,

quote:

---

1 Cor. 10:1-2 (ESV)
I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, [2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

---

Paul sees the OT equivalent to baptism as, not circumcision, but the Exodus throught the 'Red Sea'. I'm sure that there were infants who crossed the Red Sea, who were 'baptised' into Moses because of their parents decision to follow Moses.

I thus have no problems with infant baptism.

---

Well this has certainly opened my eyes a little. It is a very good point, Jewish children were circumcised at 8 days, and there is a lot in Romans about baptism being the replacement for circumcision (as I read it). Hmmm. Not entirely convinced but at last a worthwhile argument!
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
But isn't baptism more closely related to the ritual baptisms practised by the Jews regularly whenever they needed ritual cleansing? That's why mikvahs and baptistries are similar...
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Churches which practise believer's baptism usually feel a need to have a service for babies, variously understood and described as Dedication, Presentation, Thanksgiving and Blessing.

Churches which practise infant baptism usually feel a need to have a service or rite for young people, such as Confirmation.

There seem to be recognised deficiencies in each form of baptism.

---

Churches which have dedication etc services don't regard them as anything like or to do with baptism, or at least I've never encountered such a congregation.

The ceremony is i) about giving thanks to God for the baby, and maybe the safe delivery and the health of the mother, and ii) recognising that the baby belongs to God and is entrusted to the parents to look after.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Most of the churches that practice IB (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) are or have been state churches in Christian countries where infant baptism would have been a normal thing at birth whether or not the parents intended to give the child a Christian upbringing.

Most of the churches that practice only BB have tended to be Protestant churches whose orientation is more that of a community than a public utility.
[...]

Therefore, it wouldn't be surprising if (to make up some numbers for the sake of argument ) 80% of those baptized in a BB church stayed in it, while 20% of those baptized as infants in an IB church stayed in it--since many of the parents baptizing their infants in the IB church never had any intention of being faithful members, but were doing this as a rite of passage (instead of a rite of faith).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ReVoltaire:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
OK, I'm going to sound like a hyper-calvinist or Jansenist or Augustimian or whatever, but I've noticed on this thread a lot of talk about our decision and our choice, but little sense of "You did not choose me; I chose you" or "God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world."

---

Hey! That's what I said. Only not so pretty

---

It's what I said as well, only I was even less pretty: "salvation does not depend on the intelligence or knowledge of the saved person, and God is not bound by time."

So we have a sort of agreement on that - at least betweeen the Calvinists & the Catholics (& as a good Anglican I am of course both, so I get a double dose)
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "non-Christian parents do it as a purely social ceremony therefore infant baptism isn't right" is a great big red herring and erroneous logic. By the same logic we should give up celebrating Christmas because of all the non-Christians who like singing carols.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "non-Christian parents do it as a purely social ceremony therefore infant baptism isn't right" is a great big red herring and erroneous logic. By the same logic we should give up celebrating Christmas because of all the non-Christians who like singing carols.

---

No - the equivalent would be us going out and forcing people to sing carols even if they didn't want to!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean:
This one always goes around in circles.

If you see baptism sacrementaly - i.e. as primarily God doing something - then it makes perfect sense to baptise infants.

If you see it symbolically - primarily as the baptised person doing something - then it makes more sense to leave till later.

---

So I throw the spanner in the works by arguing for a symbolic baptism of infants? (as is only right if you're presby )
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
<Catholic girl in the churches of Christ finally looks at this thread and allows the questions to bubble up ...>

I thought baptism - immersion - was a symbolic death/burial/resurrection to new life. And a real one, as far as deep meanings are real.

So sprinkling an unknowing infant candidate fits where? What has an infant to die to?

And who told us we could back up a step and use a symbol of a symbol, sprinkling instead of immersion? Are we leaning on the water-and-the-ashes-of-a-heifer sprinkling that things set aside for the Lord underwent in the OT?

And what new life comes to the innocent as the result of the clergyman's actions and the parents' dedicated good intentions?
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:

<snip>
I thought baptism - immersion - was a symbolic death/burial/resurrection to new life. And a real one, as far as deep meanings are real.
<snip>
And who told us we could back up a step and use a symbol of a symbol, sprinkling instead of immersion? Are we leaning on the water-and-the-ashes-of-a-heifer sprinkling that things set aside for the Lord underwent in the OT?

And what new life comes to the innocent as the result of the clergyman's actions and the parents' dedicated good intentions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
So sprinkling an unknowing infant candidate fits where? What has an infant to die to?

---

quote:

---

And who told us we could back up a step and use a symbol of a symbol, sprinkling instead of immersion? Are we leaning on the water-and-the-ashes-of-a-heifer sprinkling that things set aside for the Lord underwent in the OT?

---

quote:

---

And what new life comes to the innocent as the result of the clergyman's actions and the parents' dedicated good intentions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Mimsey wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I think that the reason I still hold so strongly to my infant baptism is that my parents and Godparents truly believed and kept those promises. I think that if my baptism had just been a formality, and if my parents and Godparents were not Christians, then I would want to be re-baptised at this point in my life. I don't, because I understand and believe that the promises as well as the sacrament were true and "worked" for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But would it not have 'worked' had your parents not believed? Would God have not kept his promises?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
<Catholic girl in the churches of Christ finally looks at this thread and allows the questions to bubble up ...>

---

quote:

---

I thought baptism - immersion - was a symbolic death/burial/resurrection to new life. And a real one, as far as deep meanings are real.

---

quote:

---

So sprinkling an unknowing infant candidate fits where? What has an infant to die to?

---

In the first century the repentance demanded (of the Jews, note) by Jesus, and later by the apostles, was not an individual repentance of being sinful people, though it was framed that way by Protestants much later on. It was, in fact, a national repentance of the fact that Israel had refused God's vocation for it to be the light of the world. John baptized people in the Jordan River...the river that the Hebrews had to cross in order to enter the promised land and become the nation of Israel. So John was inviting people to start over, to repent of their failure to follow God's vocation for Israel, to personally reenact the Exodus and be true Israelites.

For Jesus to have preached personal repentance for one's sinfulness wouldn't have made sense. Within Judaism there was already a way to atone for one's sins: take sacrifices to the temple. The whole preaching of repentance wasn't about individual slip-ups, but about the failure of Israel as a whole, and the call to repentance was about the repentance of Israel as a whole, a motif that can be found all over the place in the Old Testament.

Finally, note that in Acts 17 where Paul gives a sermon to the pagans, he doesn't command them to repent of personal sin as such; he doesn't tell them to stop lying, stealing, committing adultery, murdering, and other such sins. He tells them to repent of following false gods. It certainly wasn't because they didn't have those other sins or that they shouldn't repent of them. But those sins were dealt with within the church. Paul's invitation to the pagans to repent invited them to repent of following false gods and turn to the one true God.

To equate baptism with individual conviction of one's personal sins and repentance of them is an understanding divorced from the historical context within which Christianity began.
 

---

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
Wo-o-o-o-ow ..... Just a minute...

What does symbol(ism) mean? If baptism is just a symbol representing *something*, and as we've identified that *something* can be one or more of a whole list of things, then does it really matter at what point someone is baptised as long as it fits with the symbolism of *something*?

Surely the point of baptism is a symbolic gesture to help us live out faith is whatever form. In that when we take one of those symbolic meanings and demean others we are being exclusive and legalistic in faith (avoided the F word ), and it would be more in the true nature of God, in loving each other, to accept that different symbolic meanings exist and to respect each of them even if we don't personally subscribe to them.

[feeling all wishy washy and liberal now ]
 

---

Posted by Balaam's Asteroid (# 4543) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Surely the point of baptism is a symbolic gesture to help us live out faith is whatever form.

---

I think those who believe in salvation through the sacraments are wrong,but baptism (or any sacrament) is more than just a symbol. I think this has already been covered in this thread.
 

---

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
Sacrament - who said anything about sacrament . In my tradition the word sacrament is used very loosely if at all. Baptism is not always a sacrament as the episcopal traditions understand it, it can be merely a symbolic gesture of our understanding of God.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Sacrament - who said anything about sacrament . In my tradition the word sacrament is used very loosely if at all. Baptism is not always a sacrament as the episcopal traditions understand it, it can be merely a symbolic gesture of our understanding of God.

---

I've never been brought up to think of baptism as a sacrament either. A symbolic act that we are requested by God to perform. And by our obedience we get whatever blessing obedience brings.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Kyralessa,
can you explain why you think that the biblcal repentance requirement was for the community rather then the individual? I've never heard that before.
 

---

Posted by Not a Care (# 1813) on :
 
My home Baptist church had the Infant Dedication service this morning...it was charming. There was of course no baptizing going on, but it seemed to take the place of the family/church promise to raise and support the child in the faith that usually happens in infant baptisms.

I have sat through a thousand infant dedications and never realized the importance and weight of this promise until I had seen the "equivalent" promise made at an infant baptism. The large size of the church takes some away from it, since most people don't know everyone up there and won't have much of a role in the kid's life. But for the ones who do, it is important. I think BB churches should emphasize that commitment even more, since that is a key part of the rationale behind infant baptism, and it is a very worthy one.

Again, it comes down to the meaning of baptism for you. Does it symbolize the individual's acceptance into the church family? Or does it symbolize the personal acceptance of Christ's salvation?

I'm still interested in the first origins of baptism. Anyone?
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
can you explain why you think that the biblcal repentance requirement was for the community rather then the individual? I've never heard that before.

---

quote:

---

Not a Care wrote:
I'm still interested in the first origins of baptism. Anyone?

---

The origins of baptism are a bit murky. For a while, way back in the 20th century, people thought the answer was clear: Christians took the practice over from Jewish proselyte baptism, which, along with circumcision for males, was the normal way in which one converted to Judaism. Seems pretty clear. But there apparently is no evidence of a washing as part of the Jewish conversion ritual prior to the advent of Christianity, so later Jewish "baptisms" could well be an imitation/borrowing from the Christian practice. In any case, it is difficult to trace a straight line from Jewish baptism to Christian baptism -- or, at least, it is difficult to know which way the line runs.

John the Baptist's baptisms were also somewhat different from early Christian baptism, since they did not initiate one into God's people, but were rather a prophetic sign-act of repentence undertaken by those who were already members of Israel. The same seems to have been the case with the ritual washings practiced by groups like the Essenes. So in this case too it is difficult to trace a straight from John's practice to the early Christian one.

My own guess (and it is only that) is that baptism was a prophetic sign act that first Christians took over from the followers of John the Baptist, but which they invested with an almost wholly new meaning, making it an initiation and seeing its primary meaning in light of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. It is interesting to read what Peter says in Acts 2:38: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." We have JBap's theme of repentence and forgiveness, but we also have the additions of the name of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit.

I also tend to think that, despite a few mentions in the Gospels of Jesus' disciples baptizing (which I think were probably JBap-like baptisms of repentence), Christian baptism properly speaking is a post-Easter phenomenon.

An interesting (perhaps) side note: Paul's "paschal" theology of baptism (i.e. baptism as a participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus), which has become the standard interpretation in both East and West, was in fact something of an anomaly in the first few centuries. The key event for interpreting Christian baptism in the first centuries seems to have been not the cross and resurrection, but Jesus' own baptism: in baptism the Christian came to share in the messianic anointing that Jesus received in the Jordan river. In the Syrian tradition, they develop an interesting theology of baptism in which Jesus "deposits" in the Jordan the cloak of immortality that Adam and Eve lost in the Fall; in entering the waters of baptism, the initiate is re-clothed in immortality. Hints of this theology are still found in both RC and Orthodox rites, in the ceremony of clothing with a white garment. The Eastern liturgy has a particularly nice text at this point: “Grant to me a robe of light, O most merciful Christ, our God, who clothe yourself with light as with a garment.”

FCB
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
FBC,
I agree that there are calls to national repentance in the Hebrew Scriptures, but also there is the call of God to the individual. In the NT, there are loads of individual calls - John's baptism, Nicodemus etc...

As to the symbolism of reclothing, BBs do it but differently, though it's certainly done less often nowadays; my daughter was baptised in her dungarees and a sweatshirt ). The white garment is the "robe of righteousness" that Christ clothes us in as part of our identification with His death, resurrection, ascension, purification. It's worn before the baptism because we have already been cleansed, purified, robed...
 

---

Posted by Mo's is (# 4010) on :
 
Is the difference between a more catholic / orthodox / anglican view and a more protestant view of baptism based in the fact that protestant type people believe more in a conversion experience and can name the time and date that they became christians whereas in a catholic etc tradition people are born into being christians and baptism confirms this as soon as possible.

or not?
 

---

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
Not - sorry. I'm definately not episcopal in any way, and yet I know not when I first believed.
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Wo-o-o-o-ow ..... Just a minute...

What does symbol(ism) mean? If baptism is just a symbol representing *something*, and as we've identified that *something* can be one or more of a whole list of things, then does it really matter at what point someone is baptised as long as it fits with the symbolism of *something*?

Surely the point of baptism is a symbolic gesture to help us live out faith is whatever form. In that when we take one of those symbolic meanings and demean others we are being exclusive and legalistic in faith (avoided the F word ), and it would be more in the true nature of God, in loving each other, to accept that different symbolic meanings exist and to respect each of them even if we don't personally subscribe to them.

[feeling all wishy washy and liberal now ]
(emphasis added)

---

Wo-o-o-o-ow ..... The above responded to my post identifying baptism with the exodus.

Clearly it needs to be pointed out that there's a difference between demeaning alternate viewpoints (e.g. "Viewpoint A is stupid") and critiquing them (e.g. "Viewpoint A is mistaken"), and that "exclusive" and "legalistic" are loaded words which do not foster good debate or discussion.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Not - sorry. I'm definately not episcopal in any way, and yet I know not when I first believed.

---

quote:

---

Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?

---

quote:

---

But what if baptism is the physical act through which one is born into the Kingdom of God? What if going down into the water is the means by which you put to death "the old man" and coming up out of the water is the means by which you are raised from death to life?

---

quote:

---

....there is a problem with those of the margins of Christianity who see the rites as a magic formula.

---

quote:

---

In fact our church is fairly unusual in that many of the regular congregation cannot actually become members as they have not been baptised as believers, and do not see the need for it!! (the church rules stipulate baptism necessary for membership). This seems to create unnecessary barriers in my opinion.

---

You and most of the rest of us doing BB have this problem. There are legal reasons why many of us make this distinction; membership boundaries, unfortunately, mean something to lawyers and taxation offices.

Many churches are starting to define what membership means to them and figure out a way to describe, through education and discipleship, what people have come up with. i.e. the problem in the scenario is not the meaning of baptism, its in the corporate understanding the roles/rights/responsibilties of membership.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Yeah, I know, theology should not tweaked be for the lowest common denominator; but, there is a lot of people out there .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
; but lets just say the less theologically savvy might and often do.

---

quote:

---

Well....Josephine said,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what if baptism is the physical act through which one is born into the Kingdom of God? What if going down into the water is the means by which you put to death "the old man" and coming up out of the water is the means by which you are raised from death to life?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds pretty much like the former to me. As Ballaam said

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo's is:
Is the difference between a more catholic / orthodox / anglican view and a more protestant view of baptism based in the fact that protestant type people believe more in a conversion experience and can name the time and date that they became christians whereas in a catholic etc tradition people are born into being christians and baptism confirms this as soon as possible.

or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean:
That describes the normal route into the kingdom of God. It does not say that it is the only route.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean:
Where are these masses that believe baptism is magic wand? I've never met them, churched or unchurched.

---

quote:

---

wanted to reply to those posters (Kyrelessa and Sean D, maybe others) who seem to think that believer's baptism is some kind of new or relatively recent idea. Of course, this simply isn't true. For as long as there has been a church, there have been those who have practised BB. In fact, it's probably truer to think that infant baptism is a newer idea than BB.

---

If you're thinking of me, I'm Sean, not Sean D. I don't think he's posted on this thread, but I could be wrong.

Of course adult baptism is older than infant baptism - otherwise how would the church have got started in the first place?
 

---

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
Sean D was the 3rd person to post on this thread, however, I made a mistake (let me just pause for a moment to register how that feels...hmm, that's what it feels like <<shudder>> mustn't do that again) It was strathclydezero's post on the first page i meant to refer to. Apologies Sean D.

Regards
M UK
 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Sean and Josephine,

Thanks for the clarifications. BTW, I have met people who believe in the magic bullet baptism theology and have baptised their kids as a form of fire insurance.

chukovsky,

I'm sorry if people's questioning of an important part of your faith has bugged you so much. Every time somebody on here questions a bit of theology I hold near and dear, I have a choice. I can get ticked at them for questioning what I believe or I can listen to them, see where I can grow, and move on.

Your baptism is very important to you and to your understanding of your relationship with God and church. Good. Others of us have different views on this issue. But, if Christians with different understandings don't discuss this and other issues, myths and misunderstandings will perpetuate and fester.

I belong to a religious movement who's members have been hunted down and killed over this issue, have been kicked out of countries over this issue, and are still seen by the odd church historian and theologian and government as weirdo heretics who want to bring about a violent revolution, all because we don't baptise our kids. Every time somebody joins our group who was IB, we deal with this issue. Maybe familiarity with the need for the discussion has blinded me to how those who have never had to deal with this topic would feel when their dearly held beliefs are questioned. Apologies on my part.

Suffice it to say, this issue is important to me, but I can relate to your wondering why people are questioning something you hold so dear.
 

---

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
What Og said

In the 16th & 17th century many of the founders of our denomination received the "Third Baptism", that was to be tied to a chair and drowned, as a punishement for their opposition to infant baptism.

So some of us have strong opinions on it, and see it as a far more important issue than other Christians. Forgive me if you feel I challenge you strongly, but do wrestle with what I and others write.

Regards
M UK
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MatrixUK:
I wanted to reply to those posters (Kyrelessa [sic] and Sean D, maybe others) who seem to think that believer's baptism is some kind of new or relatively recent idea. Of course, this simply isn't true. For as long as there has been a church, there have been those who have practised BB. In fact, it's probably truer to think that infant baptism is a newer idea than BB.

As infant baptism became the norm, those who practised BB didn't disappear, but did become a minority within the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:

If I ruled the world... OK, if I was a minister or priest, I would definitely baptise infants of both church-goers and non-churchgoers. I would probably try and persuade churchgoers that baptism was the way for their infant to become a member of the church, and that membership is possible for infants too. I'd probably say more or less the same thing to non-churchgoers too - i.e. do they really want their child to be a member of the church? I used to go to a church that followed up all baptised children, invited them to Sunday School etc. Again, they are members of the church.

I think I'd stop short of suggesting an Alpha course for non-churchgoing parents (partly because they seem designed to put off anyone with a thought of their own, but that's another story) but I'd definitely make sure the parents understood the basics of the Christian faith and knew what they were promising. It's similar to pre-marriage courses for non-churchgoing couples - some of course are put off but others may make a step along the road towards a fuller understanding of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Generally speaking the assumption is that any significant church doctrine would be contained in Scripture, and that if something is not in Scripture, that means it isn't important. I suspect that to practitioners of believers' baptism this is considered so self-evident that they little consider what a sweeping assumption it is.

---

quote:

---

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
Kyralessa - There does seem to be a sub-group however of those who think that infant baptism of the children of believers is just about OK, although not ideal, but infant baptism of other children is to be discouraged and if someone was baptised as an infant under those "other" circumstances the baptism is therefore less acceptable and less valid.

Likewise at the other end of the spectrum there seems to be a subgroup who feel that if infants have the opportunity to be baptised - i.e. their parents or other adults who are close to them have some inkling of what it is about, or more especially are church members themselves - but those infants are not baptised, they are in danger in some way.

---

chukovsky, I don't think priests ought to baptize infants who don't have committed Christian parents. However, if you were in fact baptized under such circumstances and came to faith later, I rejoice with you .

I wouldn't argue that your baptism is somehow "invalid." I don't think I said anywhere that infant baptism to non-Christian or uncommitted parents is "invalid", but I'm sure I said it was a bad idea. The fact that things turned out differently in your case is a happy exception to the general rule.

(The general rule, of course, is that kids have very strong BS detectors, and if a parent says such-and-such is important but doesn't act like it is, the kid will see right through it.)
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Triple-posting here....

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
There does seem to be a sub-group however of those who think that infant baptism of the children of believers is just about OK, although not ideal, but infant baptism of other children is to be discouraged and if someone was baptised as an infant under those "other" circumstances the baptism is therefore less acceptable and less valid.

---

quote:

---

I had another thought about the "parents who don't go to church" thing - discussion with such parents may in fact lead to them deciding they understand more about the promises infant baptism would involve and don't want to go through with it, but feel thankful enough to God to have a dedication or service of thanksgiving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
You appear to be saying that once somebody is baptised as an infant, they are trapped into being a Christian for the rest of their lives, whether they want to or not. This is absurd. People DO make up their minds about whether they want to be Christians or not, whether they are baptised as infants or not. So this can hardly count as a reason not to baptise infants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
I am not saying that baptism precludes a decision, but that it should follow a decision. Baptism seems to me to be primarily about declaring one's faith, becoming identified with Christ and being washed clean.

---

I think this is probably where some of us differ. For me (though my theology is no doubt imperfect and wooly) baptism is primarily about becoming a member of the church, and is a sign of God's grace - either of which can happen at any age, and neither of which requires a conscious statement on the part of the candidate. The first some might say requires a commitment and statement on the part of the parents/godparents, but the second doesn't seem to require this - and you could have a commitment/statement from just the godparents or just the parents - or, it seems to me, just a commitment on the part of the church to keep the child in the fold.
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
Chukovsky

Some bits from the United Methodist Church book that I read before my own baptism and which made sense to me:

quote:

---

The difference between the baptism of adults and that of infants is that the Christian faith is consciously being professed by an adult who is baptized. A baptized infant comes to profess her or his faith later in life, after having been nurtured and taught by parent(s) or other responsible adults and the community of faith. Infant baptism is the prevailing practice in situations where children are born to believing parents and brought up in Christian homes and communities of faith. Adult baptism is the norm when the Church is in a missionary situation, reaching out to persons in a culture which is indifferent or hostile to the faith. While the baptism of infants is appropriate for Christian families, the increasingly minority status of the Church in contemporary society demands more attention to evangelizing, nurturing, and baptizing adult converts.
...
The Church affirms that children being born into the brokenness of the world should receive the cleansing and renewing forgiveness of God no less than adults.

---

quote:

---

having read or scanned the three pages I failed to see clearly stated the argument for infant baptism based on tribal inclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benedictus:
Are there any instances of non believer's baptism in the Bible? Aren't there a couple of places in Acts where the master or mistress of a household was baptised and had their entire household baptised? When somebody said, But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord, had they taken a poll first?

---

Well, it's not in the New Testament, but we know that of course they went around to each person in the household one by one asking, "Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you? Do you? Do...wait, you're a baby, never mind."
 

---

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 

quote:

---

Not a Care wrote:
I'm still interested in the first origins of baptism. Anyone?

---

quote:

---

FCB wrote:
John the Baptist's baptisms were also somewhat different from early Christian baptism, since they did not initiate one into God's people, but were rather a prophetic sign-act of repentence undertaken by those who were already members of Israel. The same seems to have been the case with the ritual washings practiced by groups like the Essenes. So in this case too it is difficult to trace a straight from John's practice to the early Christian one.

---

quote:

---

FCB continued...
My own guess (and it is only that) is that baptism was a prophetic sign act that first Christians took over from the followers of John the Baptist, but which they invested with an almost wholly new meaning, making it an initiation and seeing its primary meaning in light of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. It is interesting to read what Peter says in Acts 2:38: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." We have JBap's theme of repentence and forgiveness, but we also have the additions of the name of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit.

---

quote:

---

And John was clothed in camel's hair, and a leather girdle about his loin, and eating locusts and wild honey. And he proclaimed, saying, "He who comes after me is mightier than I, of whom I am not fit to stoop down to loosen the thong of His sandals. I indeed baptized you in water, but He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit."
Mark 1:6-8

---

Assuming, of course, that you accept the integrity of the gospels.
 

---

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Wo-o-o-o-ow ..... The above responded to my post identifying baptism with the exodus.

Clearly it needs to be pointed out that there's a difference between demeaning alternate viewpoints (e.g. "Viewpoint A is stupid") and critiquing them (e.g. "Viewpoint A is mistaken"), and that "exclusive" and "legalistic" are loaded words which do not foster good debate or discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shareman:
Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid then not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.
I can't quote chapter and verse, but we all know where it comes from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Infant baptism is valid but usually undesirable.

[snip]

Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.

---

quote:

---

And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
By popular request:

What is it? How does it work? Who can perform it? How old should the infant be? Or is infant baptism just totally wrong for a myriad of reasons? Discuss! Debate! Hold forth your views! (And let us see how long it takes us to end up in Dead Horses... )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Brider:

quote:

---

And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.

---

This for me is a far more significant problem.

David.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
I have never heard of any non-Christian getting baptized.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Every Christian I know was a non-Christian before their baptism.

---

Really. And there I was, thinking that I went to the Pastor and asked to be baptised because I was a Christian.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a Care wrote:
I'm still interested in the first origins of baptism. Anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baptism was going on for centuries before the christian era. Jews used baptism regularly as a cleansing ritual, after a woman's periods, a man's nocturnal emission, chicken-pox, touching a corpse...

John the Baptiser carried this on, with cleansing from sin, repentance.

Paul added the death and new birth aspect - I don't know if this came from a Hebrew tradition as well. Someone else might.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Every Christian I know was a non-Christian before their baptism.

---

Really. And there I was, thinking that I went to the Pastor and asked to be baptised because I was a Christian.

---

Me too, - but not
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0