Ship of Fools: Baptism

Thread: Baptism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023012

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

I understand that there have been a lot of topics about baptism recently. What is it for? I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. However, a church that I went to for a few years allowed baptism again for those who had been baptized as children but did not remember it. Just because you don't remember your baptism, does that make it invalid? (I'd imagine that most people don't remember their baptism.)

How should one prepare for baptism? I am talking here about somebody who was not baptized as a baby and has decided to be baptized as an older child. Should they learn the cathechism (sp?)? Can anyone recommend a small book which will help them?

Is it right for a minor to be baptized in the absence of their birth family? The church which they go to is more into Church family than birth family, but I can't help thinking that this isn't what God would want.

I understand that baptism and confirmation became separate because there were not enough bishops in the early church to do both, since the bishops could only visit the new Christians once a year. Is that right?

Thanks for your help.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. However, a church that I went to for a few years allowed baptism again for those who had been baptized as children but did not remember it.

I've always taken this line of the creed to mean that we're all baptised into the same thing - i.e. there's only one kind of baptism; not that we are only baptised once.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. However, a church that I went to for a few years allowed baptism again for those who had been baptized as children but did not remember it.
I've always taken this line of the creed to mean that we're all baptised into the same thing - i.e. there's only one kind of baptism; not that we are only baptised once.

That puts you at odds with the mainline churches, in which it is seen as a major no-no to rebaptize. The thinking is that it suggests that the works of God are inefffective. Most mainline denominations have some sort of "conditional" baptism service for folks who just don't know if they were ever baptized, that emphasizes the notion of baptism being a one-time event.

--Tom Clune

[ 23. April 2012, 20:06: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Obviously it depends what the church believes about baptism. A church that practices "believer's baptism" and sees baptism primarily as a person making a public statement about their commitment to God in the presence of their community (i.e. parallel to a marriage ceremony) will re-baptize a person who was baptized as an infant, because that infant baptism didn't -- couldn't -- have the meaning that baptism is supposed to have within that faith community. For the same reason, such churches will often re-baptize people who did make an adult choice to be baptized, but have "fallen away" and want the rebaptism to be a symbol of their new committment to Christ.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

From the Catholic perspective, I think one of the points of baptism was to cleanse one's soul of original sin--which was why it was done to infants as soon as possible so that they did not die with original sin on their souls (which some thinkers in the Middle Ages then decided would mean that the baby's soul would go to Limbo--not pure enough for heaven, but still too much of an innocent to go to hell).

In the Catholic scheme, then, Confirmation was used for the adolescent/adult person to make a knowing choice to commit to God and the Church. No "re-baptism" needed because once is enough.

If I am right about that, then baptism and confirmation were separated not because of any lack of priest, but out of necessity--the need to baptise early to cleanse original sin, and then confirmation later when the person is able to make the knowing choice that that person's infant self could not make.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Obviously it depends what the church believes about baptism. A church that practices "believer's baptism" and sees baptism primarily as a person making a public statement about their commitment to God in the presence of their community ... will re-baptize a person who was baptized as an infant, because that infant baptism didn't -- couldn't -- have the meaning that baptism is supposed to have within that faith community. For the same reason, such churches will often re-baptize people who did make an adult choice to be baptized, but have "fallen away" and want the rebaptism to be a symbol of their new committment to Christ.

That is quite true (although the last bit is unusual, at least in Britain); indeed, many Baptists (etc.) would justify this by saying that "Infant Baptism" isn't real baptism at all.

However, in this Ecumenical age, there are many clergy who are aware of the implications of such a position, and who would urge the candidate - if at all possible - to think in terms of "making a public affirmation of the promises that had been made on their behalf" at their baptism.

Doesn't always work, though.

[ 23. April 2012, 20:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Are you saying that both bits are true? As in you (or some Baptists) would be willing to baptize again someone baptized as an adult who had been away from Christianity and then returned?

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

Jude, I did check a little further from the Catholic perspective. Here are links to excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Baptism and Confirmation.

It is somewhat more complicated then I made it sound (of course!) but the basic sense is there. Baptism is the doorway to the other sacraments--pretty much a necessary first step. The "confirmation" entry does indicate that originally the two sacraments were done simultaneously, but that changed as baptism became more common for infants and confirmationw as saved for those making a knowing choice.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

Baptism is both remission of sins and entrance in to the church, so it is dying to a former life and starting a new one. There is an idea of baptism as well as both burial and rising.

I was baptized as an adult. Preparation involved discernment over a few years and confession beforehand. I was baptized by triple immersion and was chrismated immediately following as is custom.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
You (or some Baptists) would be willing to baptize again someone baptized as an adult who had been away from Christianity and then returned?

No, I certainly wouldn't do that, nor would any other Baptists I know.

But I have anecdotally heard of it happening in some Pentecostal churches - or so I have been led to believe.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Hello Everybody!

I'm new to this forum, so I'll keep it brief. I'm a recent convert to Orthodoxy, and my understanding is that Baptism can only be done once. This is because it is a sign of regeneration, a sacrament or Holy Mystery. At my church, there is no confirmation - children take communion straight after baptism - even if they are only a few months old!
The way I see it, Baptism isn't something YOU DO - ie. a chance to proclaim your testamony, or make public your devotion to Christ - it is something that is done TO YOU - you are born again and grafted into the church. It may not be the same time that you openly take a step of faith to follow Jesus, but never-the-less the two things are one and the same!

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

"One Baptism for Remission of Sins" is something the UCCan actually takes seriously and has a good practice of observing. As chair of the Worship Committee at my church, it's the most frequent doctrine/worship/pastoral issue I face.

With modern families with diverse structures, backgrounds and histories of religious observance, we often have children who may or may not have been baptized, ones weren't baptized and need to be (the two categories can be siblings) and parents/grandparents who want a "welcoming" ceremony just the same.

To that end I have an Asperges service (yes, at my really Protty shack) on standby in cases where the Nicene Rebaptism Interlock has been engaged and next month we have a "Blessing" service for a child from Australia (the grandparents are local church members here in Canada) with a Hindu parent, the parents don't want to commit the child to one religion just yet, as I understand it.

Sometimes it pays to have the liturgy book on standby to make everybody happy.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

So, the plan is to sprinkle water on the child for the forgiveness of sins but call it something other than baptism?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, the plan is to sprinkle water on the child for the forgiveness of sins but call it something other than baptism?

As far as I can understand a "blessing" and a "Baptism" are two very different things.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Yes, but Asperges suggests something more akin to Baptism. The term comes from the Vulgate translation of Psalm 51:7. Psalm 51:7 (NRSV)reads, "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." The whole rite is meant as a reminder of Baptism.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, the plan is to sprinkle water on the child for the forgiveness of sins but call it something other than baptism?

No, the Asperges service is for those already baptized and comes straight out of the UCCan's service book.

The Blessing service is words only, there is no "forgiveness of sins" unless you want to count General Confession in that one but that's a separate part of the service.

You can't, or shouldn't, asperge the unbaptized.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I got you. The Blessing is the Welcoming which I assume is like a Dedication. Dedications in the Baptist church of my youth resembled the beginning of the Lion King.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

It's a bit of a one-off, but there were unique circumstances. Diversity of modern family life requires flexible worship planning.

It's my job to give people approximately what they want while upholding church doctrine and teaching. We can bless things (in the biblical sense of a father blessing his son) till the cows come home but only baptize once.

OTOH I get to write a nice letter directing the family to the nearest Uniting Church of Australia congregation for continuing pastoral care, being as we are cut from the very same cloth. The Roman Catholics do this as a matter of course, for once we get to have some family fun. [Big Grin]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Obviously it depends what the church believes about baptism. A church that practices "believer's baptism" and sees baptism primarily as a person making a public statement about their commitment to God in the presence of their community (i.e. parallel to a marriage ceremony) will re-baptize a person who was baptized as an infant, because that infant baptism didn't -- couldn't -- have the meaning that baptism is supposed to have within that faith community. For the same reason, such churches will often re-baptize people who did make an adult choice to be baptized, but have "fallen away" and want the rebaptism to be a symbol of their new committment to Christ.

This is something I consider fascinating, but from the reverse perspective.

I was baptized in the Assemblies of God, which sees it as nothing more than a public declaration of your commitment to God, and therefore only practices "believer's baptism" (but has infant dedication). But because it was in water and used the Trinitarian formula, my baptism is considered valid in sacramental traditions, such as the Episcopal Church which I joined as an adult.

The words were there, the matter was there, but was the intent, if the A/G church wasn't intending it to be a sacrament? And if they can celebrate the Sacrament of Baptism without intending to, what implications might that have for other sacraments?

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
asperge the unbaptized.

I would love to have a t-shirt with that printed on it.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Obviously it depends what the church believes about baptism. A church that practices "believer's baptism" and sees baptism primarily as a person making a public statement about their commitment to God in the presence of their community (i.e. parallel to a marriage ceremony) will re-baptize a person who was baptized as an infant, because that infant baptism didn't -- couldn't -- have the meaning that baptism is supposed to have within that faith community. For the same reason, such churches will often re-baptize people who did make an adult choice to be baptized, but have "fallen away" and want the rebaptism to be a symbol of their new committment to Christ.
This is something I consider fascinating, but from the reverse perspective.

I was baptized in the Assemblies of God, which sees it as nothing more than a public declaration of your commitment to God, and therefore only practices "believer's baptism" (but has infant dedication). But because it was in water and used the Trinitarian formula, my baptism is considered valid in sacramental traditions, such as the Episcopal Church which I joined as an adult.

The words were there, the matter was there, but was the intent, if the A/G church wasn't intending it to be a sacrament? And if they can celebrate the Sacrament of Baptism without intending to, what implications might that have for other sacraments?

Speaking from a sacramental (Lutheran) background, we believe that the intention (at least, the human intention) has nothing to do with it. God's intention expressed in the promises of baptism is what matters. And therefore, as long as the baptism fits the parameters of the promise, it's valid and effective (meaning, as long as the baptism IS a Christian baptism--which means performed with water and the triune name).

This has led in the past to cases where two children playing baptism have inadvertantly managed the real thing--which was duly registered in the church! (and probably tidied up for scandalized adults by adding a blessing or prayer or two, but the power wouldn't be in that, but in the Promise attached to the original event)

And yes, this has implications for the Lord's Supper too--which is why we are so cagey about who comes to the table, and so very uncomfortable with any of the 1970s style wild-and-crazy communion imitations.

[ 24. April 2012, 01:56: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

I don´t think any important denomination teaches that the same person can or should be baptzied more then once, but they differ on what they understand as baptism. Baptists and pentecostals who baptize adults who had been previously baptized as children in a catholic, anglican or lutheran church don´t believe they are baptizing again, since they don´t consider the infant baptism as real baptism.

As far as I know, the Orthodox Churches don´t consider any baptism outside of the cannonical orthodox churches to be valid. However, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes all sacraments performed by orthodox priests.

There are some non-trinitarian pentecostal denominations where baptism is only "in the name of Jesus". Mainline denominations won´t recognize this type of baptism as valid. It seems very weird cause most scholars from mainline churches agree that the end of the gospel of Mathew, where the trinitarian baptism formula comes from, is a latter addition, and elsewhere in the Bible, baptisms seem to have been performed only "in the name of Jesus Christ". It´s also very odd that in these denominations, trinitarian belief, or even theism, isn´t considered a requirement to be a member, yet the trinitarian formula is a requirement for valid baptism.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Jude, I did check a little further from the Catholic perspective. Here are links to excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Baptism and Confirmation.

It is somewhat more complicated then I made it sound (of course!) but the basic sense is there. Baptism is the doorway to the other sacraments--pretty much a necessary first step. The "confirmation" entry does indicate that originally the two sacraments were done simultaneously, but that changed as baptism became more common for infants and confirmationw as saved for those making a knowing choice.

In the Catholic Churches, confirmation is more about "receiving the Holy Spirit" then making a public declaration of faith. I know people who were chrismed as young as 2 or 3 years old (my mother herself...). That certainly isn´t a "public declaration of faith by a willing person". Nonetheless, the sacrament is still considered valid cause its validity has nothing to do with the person actually wanting to make a declaration of faith.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

It's (a bit) interesting to see what various churches consider the essential form of baptism. For example: in the catholic tradition I believe that it has to include the trinitarian formula "in the name of the F the S and the HS". So my baptism as a JW would be invalid. However, I was baptised in the Plymouth Brethren and it is quite clear that this is accepted.

A friend of mine finally decided to add adult baptism to the previous infant baptism she had, but the Pastor fluffed his lines and baptised her into the "name of the Father the Son and the Lord Jesus Christ". He wasn't a Jesus-only guy, just a regular evangelical obviously a bit nervous. She was left with a little bit of doubt, but didn't go for a third.

Does it really matter what the for used is?

As an aside, when (briefly) a wedding registrar I learned that there are also essential words in the marriage ceremony which a lot of people don't know and sometimes ignore out of a desire to be trendy. I was tempted to take the p out of an uber-pious couple I knew who arguably have been Living in Sin as they omitted some vital words.

Didn't, though. I do occasionally refuse opportunities to be a smart-arse. But I did contact the UK Chief Registrar who said that no marriage would now be challenged on those grounds.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

Pruning away all extraneous ideas, a believer could commit to a particular rabbi's teaching:
2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 1 Cor 10

He could change his teacher:
35Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples,
36 and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

By being baptized/accepted again:
2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19

IOW, baptism, essentially, is acceptance to a study course.

The foundation for the course is Scripture (pagan teachings not permitted):

4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?

5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Is it right for a minor to be baptized in the absence of their birth family? The church which they go to is more into Church family than birth family, but I can't help thinking that this isn't what God would want.

I was baptised at age 13 (that qualifies as 'a minor') against my parents' wishes - my farther having died an atheist and my mother supporting his wishes (though she later started churchgoing).

I was confirmed 3 days after the baptism and soon became a daily communicant.

I am not sure how God could not have wanted that (me).

Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on :

Suppose someone who is a baptized Christian converts to Judaism or Islam then reverts to Christianity...o.what rite is there to solemnize the return? What if the individual were to have converted to a non Abrahamic religion such as Hinduism, or even Satansim, Wouldn't re-baptism be necessary? Any one ever hear of this happening

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

A couple of things. The big question is who is doing what.

Sacramental churches hold that God is declaring someone his child. It is a sacred act, a means of grace.

NonSacramental churches hold it is something the believer is doing. That is why most nonsacramental churches call it an ordinance, a law that must be followed.

It is not all that unusual for churches who insist on believer's baptism will also insist that any one who joins a congregation be rebaptized even if they have already had a believers baptism. As if the first one did not take.

At what age can a person decide to be baptized if they have never been baptized? I think the example of a 13 year old is a good example. Must have been tough going against the wishes of the father.

What type of instruction? For most adults I would think a six week introductory course on the basics of Christianity would be sufficient. The emphasis is on introductory, though. IMHO all Christians should continue their education.

Lutherans have also been moving to allowing children to commune at a very young age. This is something that should be discussed between the parent and the pastor. In our congregation it is when the child is taking solid food, but I have seen it where we offer the bread dipped in a very diluted wine at the time the infant is baptized. Depends on the family.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
Suppose someone who is a baptized Christian converts to Judaism or Islam then reverts to Christianity...o.what rite is there to solemnize the return? What if the individual were to have converted to a non Abrahamic religion such as Hinduism, or even Satansim, Wouldn't re-baptism be necessary? Any one ever hear of this happening

It would be the rite of absolution and public reconciliation (or whatever the heck we've named it now), the undoing of excommunication. Even if, as in this case, the person essentially excommunicated himself.

No more would be needed no matter WHAT he'd done. Baptism is God's giftie, so he can refuse to take it back as he pleases--which means it's still there waiting when the baptized person returns to his senses.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

I'm remembering the line "marked as Christ's own forever". If I'm not imagining this, then once baptised, you're done. I have thought that given this, that it's pretty wide open for being accepted by God.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

If a baptized Christian converts to Judaism or Islam and then latter reverts back to Christianity the person would be encouraged to reaffirm their baptism after suitable instruction and counsel.

For that matter Christians are encouraged to reaffim their baptism continually. Luther, in his instructions on Morning and Evening prayer, told his followers to begin by making the sign of the cross to remind themselves of their baptism.

Throughout the liturgical year there are appropriate places to have a reaffirmation of baptism--at the Baptism of Jesus; Easter Vigil; Pentecost, to name a few.

A beautiful illustration for the permanency of baptism is that once baptized we continue to walk wet throughout our whole lives. We walk wet in our baptism - connected to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 6:1-6)- living in the wash cycle of conviction, confession, forgiveness and submission to the Spirit

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. However, a church that I went to for a few years allowed baptism again for those who had been baptized as children but did not remember it.
I've always taken this line of the creed to mean that we're all baptised into the same thing - i.e. there's only one kind of baptism; not that we are only baptised once.
That puts you at odds with the mainline churches, in which it is seen as a major no-no to rebaptize.

I'm not sure that I see how this puts Jude at odds with the mainline churches. He said that he understands the Creed to refer to a common baptism and not to be referring to the belief that baptism is conducted only once. He didn't say that he actually believes that baptism can be administered more than once.

As it happens, my understanding of the Creed on this point seems to be the same as Jude's, yet I reject rebaptism.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Hello Everybody!

I'm new to this forum, so I'll keep it brief. I'm a recent convert to Orthodoxy, and my understanding is that Baptism can only be done once. This is because it is a sign of regeneration, a sacrament or Holy Mystery. At my church, there is no confirmation - children take communion straight after baptism - even if they are only a few months old!

Welcome aboard! [Smile]

Confirmation does exist in the Orthodox Church, but under the name of Chrismation (although Confirmation is sometimes used). Unlike in the west, in the Byzantine east it never became separated from Baptism, but continued to be administered immediately after it. Only after Baptism and Confirmation/Chrismation is Communion given.

quote:
The way I see it, Baptism isn't something YOU DO - ie. a chance to proclaim your testamony, or make public your devotion to Christ - it is something that is done TO YOU - you are born again and grafted into the church. It may not be the same time that you openly take a step of faith to follow Jesus, but never-the-less the two things are one and the same!

I would agree with you that Baptism is indeed primarily the action of God, as indeed are all Mysteries of the Church. However, rather than seeing it as someting God does to us, I would suggest that it is an action of God in which we participate. This is the synergy of the sacramental life.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
There are some non-trinitarian pentecostal denominations where baptism is only "in the name of Jesus". Mainline denominations won´t recognize this type of baptism as valid. It seems very weird cause most scholars from mainline churches agree that the end of the gospel of Mathew, where the trinitarian baptism formula comes from, is a latter addition, and elsewhere in the Bible, baptisms seem to have been performed only "in the name of Jesus Christ". It´s also very odd that in these denominations, trinitarian belief, or even theism, isn´t considered a requirement to be a member, yet the trinitarian formula is a requirement for valid baptism.

I'm a Methodist, but I have some of these non-Trinitarian Pentecostals in my extended family. I don't know much about their beliefs, but I agree that they put a lot of stress on being baptised according to the right formula. In fact, I've been told by them that I could continue to be a Methodist, but should be rebaptised 'in Jesus' name'! If I'd been baptised as a baby rather than as an adult I might have been tempted to go along with this, seeing it as a mature confirmation of my commitment to Christ. But since my mother was true to her upbringing and didn't have me baptised as a baby, I was baptised as an adult. I refuse to believe that I need yet another adult baptism, whatever the formula!

Talking of which, gorpo, you say that these non-Trinitarian baptisms aren't viewed as valid in the mainstream churches, yet my mother wasn't rebaptised when she later became a member of the Methodist church. I don't know if anyone questioned the precise nature of her baptism - and I'm sure she would have been extremely unhappy to be told that her baptism was invalid! I'll have to ask her about it, but I suspect that the Methodist minister simply assumed that she'd been baptised in a Trinitarian church. My mother has always referred to her background in the 'Pentecostal church' and she never uses any other qualifier such as 'non-Trinitarian'; until recently she assumed that her church was THE representative of Pentecostalism. I doubt that all this would have been discussed in any depth at all when she asked to be confirmed as a Methodist. (She became an active member of the Methodist church, although circumstances have now taken her away from the Methodist orbit.)

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

SvitlanaV2, it sounds as though your mother (and extended family) may have belonged to one o the groups falling under this umbrella.

It it essentially modalism/Sabellianism set within an otherwise Pentecostal framework.

[ 25. April 2012, 11:08: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

Please forgive that trainwreck of a post.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
SvitlanaV2, it sounds as though your mother (and extended family) may have belonged to one o the groups falling under this umbrella.

It it essentially modalism/Sabellianism set within an otherwise Pentecostal framework.

Yes, Wiki seems to have it about right, as far as I'm aware. My mother sometimes refers to her family's church as the Apostolic Church, but the United Pentecostal Church International also rings a bell. My mother doesn't make much distinction between these groups, so I imagine they're very similar in theology, church practice and behaviour.

I don't think I could ever be a part of this faith tradition, but I'd like to learn more about it.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

I was baptised as an infant, into the Church of England at my mother's insistence, and with the collusion of my four grandparents. My father, who was a born again Christian, had himself re-batised in the Baptist Church, and was miffed at my christening against his principals. But I was brought up in the Baptist Church from the age of 4 to 15. The older I got, the more it was becoming expected of me to undergo a believers baptism, a whole body immersion, near the front of the church. This, among several other things, was one of the reasons I rejected this form of Christianity, which left a bad taste in my mouth for the next 25 years!

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Sacramental churches hold that God is declaring someone his child. It is a sacred act, a means of grace. NonSacramental churches hold it is something the believer is doing.

This represents the major fault line within Christianity. Baptism has become an initiation rite much the same os circumcision to the Jews, because for sacramentalist, it is God's act towards us. For non sacramentalists, it is our act towards God. I do, believe, however, that when we come to the age of reason, we need to act in co-operation with God's unbounded grace to make it real in our lives.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Sacramental churches hold that God is declaring someone his child. It is a sacred act, a means of grace. NonSacramental churches hold it is something the believer is doing.
This represents the major fault line within Christianity. Baptism has become an initiation rite much the same os circumcision to the Jews, because for sacramentalist, it is God's act towards us. For non sacramentalists, it is our act towards God. I do, believe, however, that when we come to the age of reason, we need to act in co-operation with God's unbounded grace to make it real in our lives.

And yet, on some level, it would seem we're arguing semantics.

Both sides agree that we should celebrate the truth that God is present and acting in grace in our lives, calling us to him "while we were yet sinners". Both sides agree that God's gift of grace calls for some sort of chosen response of faith.

These two truths can be represented either with infant baptism, followed by confirmation-- or by infant dedication, followed by believer baptism.

Posted by Ana (# 11667) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Is it right for a minor to be baptized in the absence of their birth family? The church which they go to is more into Church family than birth family, but I can't help thinking that this isn't what God would want.

What alternative are you proposing?

Would God prefer that baptism be withheld until the parents have been converted too, because the child isn't "old enough"? Is there an age requirement for God's grace?

I confess I am not unbiased in this, having been dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom at a very young age, to find that almost everyone else there assumed my parents were in church with me... somewhere [Ultra confused]

By the grace of God, it all worked out for me in the end. When I finally was baptised, various people in the congregation gave me cards, hugs, and various instructions to think of them as my family there with me, rather than dwelling on the acts of my parents (who had politely requested that I didn't ask them to come).

It's scarily easy to disenfranchise unaccompanied children from the church community, especially as they are unlikely to really understand what's going on at an adult level, or what "should" happen.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ana:

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Is it right for a minor to be baptized in the absence of their birth family? The church which they go to is more into Church family than birth family, but I can't help thinking that this isn't what God would want.
What alternative are you proposing?

Would God prefer that baptism be withheld until the parents have been converted too, because the child isn't "old enough"? Is there an age requirement for God's grace?

[...]
It's scarily easy to disenfranchise unaccompanied children from the church community, especially as they are unlikely to really understand what's going on at an adult level, or what "should" happen.

Maybe Jude is thinking that, in the Bible, babies were baptised with their families because the whole family ('household') had come to faith. Infant baptism as we know it today occurs under very different conditions. Presiding ministers hope that the baptised children and their parents will come to faith, but for the families concerned the baptism itself is sufficient and nothing further is required.

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

Actually I was thinking more of when the parents are Christians but have a problem with the church which their teenagers attend, concerning denominational differences with regard to baptism, communion, etc.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Actually I was thinking more of when the parents are Christians but have a problem with the church which their teenagers attend, concerning denominational differences with regard to baptism, communion, etc.

I see. Well, in the past there were young people who displeased their parents by getting involved in various revival movements (e.g. in the 18th c. teenagers sometimes incited their parents' wrath by choosing to become Methodsts), but most of them would already have been baptised as babies anyway. I wonder if, in bygone times, families were plunged into conflict by their teenaged and young adult children choosing to be rebaptised into the Baptist Church. I'm sure that did happen, but one would have to look into the social history of that denomination.

I find it hard to believe that the issue is terribly current in modern Britain. Non-religious parents would probably be pretty dismayed to find that their child was becoming a serious God-botherer, but for committed Christian parents, I think the fact that their child maintained any interest in Christianity at all into their teens would be a cause for rejoicing rather than anything else. And these days, surely it's unlikely that any 14 year old child of Christian parents would be getting heavily involved in a some other church without their parents' involvement. The parents would be expected to provide lifts, funding towards church trips/activities, etc. There might be some kind of ecumenical arrangement between the two churches, in which case it would be awkward to express too much public disapproval.

I suppose there might be a problem if the parents were very focused on family tradition, and also if the rival church were perceived to be some kind of cult. I don't suppose many Catholic parents would be impressed.

But it's not against the law for a young person who's old enough to express a point of view to be baptised without their parents' permission. Is it?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I remember my parents being really cross that I had attended the believer's baptism of a schoolfriend. I think they were worried that I might decide to do the same. You're only supposed to get baptised once. I had to reassure them that I had absolutely no intention of copying my friend, but that I did want to be there to support her.

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

Svitlana said

quote:
And these days, surely it's unlikely that any 14 year old child of Christian parents would be getting heavily involved in a some other church without their parents' involvement.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I can easily imagine a teenager wanting to go to a church with a livelier youth group, different style of worship or whatever and not wanting their parents to tag along. I think the parents might be wise to let them have that space to develop.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
I don't think this is necessarily true. I can easily imagine a teenager wanting to go to a church with a livelier youth group, different style of worship or whatever and not wanting their parents to tag along. I think the parents might be wise to let them have that space to develop.

This happened in our church. A young teen from the neighborhood got involved in our youth group because her friends were involved, went to confirmation class with them, and was baptized and confirmed all without parental participation. She just came from a chaotic, religion-indifferent family; it wasn't so much hostility toward the Church as a bleary, "Um...'kay...whatever..." At our confirmation service we have the kids' parents and baptismal sponsors, if they're there, add their hands to the pastor's hands as he confirms each one; in this case the girls' classmates all laid hands on her head with the pastor. It was a real "God moment" that Sunday.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

Oh, it definitely happens in the way that Jonah describes.

I know of a couple of families whose kids were involved with our youth group (Anglican) who left us and started attending the Baptist Church in the next town/village. I can remember the father of one of the kids asking me if I/we (ie the youth group leaders) were bothered/offended by this, to which the response was "Why should we be? They're still involved with a Christian community & working out what that means for them."

And, FWIW, the youngsters in question (baptised as infants) re-affirmed their faith with believers baptism in the Baptist church.

[ 27. April 2012, 15:29: Message edited by: kingsfold ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
Oh, it definitely happens in the way that Jonah describes.

I know of a couple of families whose kids were involved with our youth group (Anglican) who left us and started attending the Baptist Church in the next town/village. I can remember the father of one of the kids asking me if I/we (ie the youth group leaders) were bothered/offended by this, to which the response was "Why should we be? They're still involved with a Christian community & working out what that means for them."

And, FWIW, the youngsters in question (baptised as infants) re-affirmed their faith with believers baptism in the Baptist church.

The point I was making is that the parents would have to give their blessing to their children's involvement initially - remember that the OP is about young teenagers, not 17-19 year olds. (Presumably the parents in your story had to give their kids a lift to the next village, or provide them with bus fare,so it's not as though they were being excluded from their children's lives.) Everyone was okay about the children changing their church because those children were becoming more committed Christians, regardless of denomination.

I can also imagine Chorister's scenario, where non-evangelical Anglicans (or Catholics, Methodists, URC people, etc.) might be theologically unhappy with the concept of re-baptism.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
I don't think this is necessarily true. I can easily imagine a teenager wanting to go to a church with a livelier youth group, different style of worship or whatever and not wanting their parents to tag along. I think the parents might be wise to let them have that space to develop.

And it especially happens when the teenager's parents are involved in the leadership. It can be quite liberating to go along to a different church where your parents don't run everything. But if it is a different churchmanship, the parents can sometimes feel embarrassed that their child is somehow showing them up by belonging to a different church, and that they have somehow failed as leaders and parents.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I was baptised as an infant, into the Church of England at my mother's insistence, and with the collusion of my four grandparents. My father, who was a born again Christian, had himself re-batised in the Baptist Church, and was miffed at my christening against his principals. But I was brought up in the Baptist Church from the age of 4 to 15. The older I got, the more it was becoming expected of me to undergo a believers baptism, a whole body immersion, near the front of the church. This, among several other things, was one of the reasons I rejected this form of Christianity, which left a bad taste in my mouth for the next 25 years!

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Sacramental churches hold that God is declaring someone his child. It is a sacred act, a means of grace. NonSacramental churches hold it is something the believer is doing.
This represents the major fault line within Christianity. Baptism has become an initiation rite much the same os circumcision to the Jews, because for sacramentalist, it is God's act towards us. For non sacramentalists, it is our act towards God. I do, believe, however, that when we come to the age of reason, we need to act in co-operation with God's unbounded grace to make it real in our lives.

ISTM that baptism must be a the coming together of the person and God by the will of both. If it hasn't happened that way, the individual will be prompted to go the way God desires, and the Church leaders will be prompted to facilitate God's will, possibly by way of confirmation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
I don't think this is necessarily true. I can easily imagine a teenager wanting to go to a church with a livelier youth group, different style of worship or whatever and not wanting their parents to tag along. I think the parents might be wise to let them have that space to develop.
And it especially happens when the teenager's parents are involved in the leadership. It can be quite liberating to go along to a different church where your parents don't run everything. But if it is a different churchmanship, the parents can sometimes feel embarrassed that their child is somehow showing them up by belonging to a different church, and that they have somehow failed as leaders and parents.

I know a young man who was adopted by an Anglican vicar as a baby. He joined my old Methodist church and was a member for quite a few years. But he eventually left to become part of a new evangelical church further away. (He works abroad now, so I have no idea what kind of church he's attending.)

I always wonder what his father must have thought of that trajectory.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

It would be wrong to baptise a young teenager without their parents knowledge or consent.

However it isn't wrong if they are not there but know and consent to it.

I have known quite a lot of children who choose a different denomination than their parents, mostly the parents are just happy that their children are Christians.

There have been some though were parents are unhappy with it maybe for theological reasons or for example when the children of RC parents joined a Baptist church and vice versa.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
It would be wrong to baptise a young teenager without their parents knowledge or consent.

I belonged to an ecumenical youth group as a teenager, as well as singing in my own church choir. Each year we used to go on a residential camp and anyone who wanted to could be baptised in the swimming pool. I don't suppose many parents knew about it, unless their offspring decided to spill the beans. Most of them thought their kids were just off having a fun time, with their friends, making music.

Perhaps it is different now, with children still being considered minors until age 18. But back then it was common for children to be completely socially independent by age 13 and, for some kids, even earlier. I wonder if any of those young people look back, later in life, and regret the faith decisions they made.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Chorister

You talk about kids 'spilling the beans', but weren't they proactively urged to go out and tell the world that they'd 'given their lives to Jesus'? Surely, they weren't expected to go for full immersion and then keep it quiet? Isn't baptism generally meant to indicate some kind of change in your life? Or was it viewed rather as a confirmation of a decision and a way of life that the young people had long since made their own? If it was the latter, then I suppose the parents wouldn't really have much to fear from these baptisms because they wouldn't be a sign of anything new in their children's lives.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I've no idea. I guess it was just a case of times being different in those days and parental consent just didn't come into it.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
It would be wrong to baptise a young teenager without their parents knowledge or consent.

Undesirable maybe. But not actually morally wrong or illegal.

Or putting the boot on the other foot, how old would you think a child has to be before their parents ought not to force them to follow their religion?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
It would be wrong to baptise a young teenager without their parents knowledge or consent.

So, as i am sure I have said before on this thread, I shouldn't have been baptised in my teenage years, nor become a daily communicant. Was the priest who baptised me, and the godparents from the congregation engaged in some sort of sinful action?

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: I always wonder what his father must have thought of that trajectory.

Well I can tell you that I've horrified my father with my trajectory! He was a born again baptist, who, in the late 50's seriously decided going into the Baptist Church ministry, though he didn't. To him, the Pope was the Antichrist, the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon, and any hint of ritual in worship was satanic mumbo jumbo. He's still living at the age of 87, and although much more mellow and less zelous than when he was a young man, I know he was quietly upset at my decision to join the Catholic Church last year. Still, we agreed to differ many years ago in our interpretation of Christanity, and still maintain a very warm relationship, thanks be to God.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I belonged to an ecumenical youth group as a teenager, as well as singing in my own church choir. Each year we used to go on a residential camp and anyone who wanted to could be baptised in the swimming pool.

It doesn't sound very ecumenical, Chorister. Did they check this out with their mainstream Anglican and Catholic partners?

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
It doesn't sound very ecumenical, Chorister. Did they check this out with their mainstream Anglican and Catholic partners?

'Round these here parts they call it sheep rustlin'.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I wasn't really party to the leadership ethos, being young at the time. As I recall, it was started by a Methodist, but they had at least one Anglican on board. (Don't recall any Roman Catholic leaders, although some of the young people were Catholic). From memory, most if not all of the leaders were Evangelicals, regardless of denomination. I think they came from the 'I'm a youth leader and I have a chip on my shoulder about the establishment' stable, but that may be doing some of the more senior ones a disservice.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0