Ship of Fools: What is baptism all about?

Thread: What is baptism all about? 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=024216

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

A church member at a local Episcopal church has a new great-grandbaby, which she usually brings to church on Sundays. She was told it cannot be baptized in church because the parents are not members.

Friends of the great grand parents are planning a baptism at a private house, they will invite the clergy person but if she says no then a lay person will do the deed and a few of us will be gathered to celebrate the occasion.

I thought the theology of baptism is it has nothing to do with membership in a specific congregation, so I'm puzzled by the refusal, but this is not the first time I've run into "you aren't a member of our congregation so we won't baptize your child." The previous time is a close friend who as a result of being told no by the church he grew up in, and not being a church-goer anywhere, never had the child baptized.

I'm not sure if the is a question for purg, eccles, or kerygma, but I'm curious about when is it appropriate for a church to refuse to baptize a baby? And why? It can't be just about making sure of parental permission, because my friend who was told no was the parent.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Certainly my understanding of baptism is that is the church welcoming a new person into the Church. So yes it seems rather illogical to baptize a non-member.

On the other hand, that action sure guaranteed that that family didn't become members, so I could see going either way on that particular decision.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

My understanding is that baptism welcomes one into the church, the Body of Christ, of which all Christians are a member, not the local church. If it was just the local church you would have to be rebaptised each time you changed churches. ( yes I know some churches do this, but not the Episcopal church) I do not understand the local clergy thinking at all on this one. I think he needs to reread the story of Jesus welcoming the children. The only thing I could understand is perhaps he thinks the child will not be supported in their faith by his/her parents, but it looks like grandmother is filling that role, as well as a whole community of the faithful. Wish we knew more of the priest's thinking.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The congregation makes promises as well as the parents and godparents. Most priests will require the parents to give some indication they understand the meaning of baptism and give some indication they plan on raising their child in the church. The great grandmother brings the child to church every Sunday. That would be good enough for me.

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

My congregation does the same thing as Beeswax Altar's. Much of our baptism "custom" is from grandchildren/great-grandchildren of Members. Many of the parents have subsequently become Members and the children regulars in our Sunday School.

"Splash and Run" baptisms where you never see the baby or the parents again are always an issue in denominations where the congregation make explicit undertakings to raise the child in Christ's Way.

On an Eccles tangent, this is why our congregation appreciates decent liturgy at Baptisms, it is Serious Stuff for a Serious Event. People have reasonable expectations and we try to meet them.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Is the old lady a member?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Question about the first instance: Is the grandmother wanting to have the child baptized without the parent's permission? Or do the parents actually want the child baptized themselves.

If the grandmother is wanting to do this without the parent's permission there may be some legal issues. I have heard of pastors being sued for doing this without the parents okay.

On the other hand, when a child is brought to baptism the parents and sponsors are promising to bring the child up in the church, to teach them the ten commandments and other parts of the faith (the promise varies a bit from denomination to denomination). If the priest does not think the parents are going to fulfill this promise maybe the child should not be baptized.

In the second instance, lay people can baptize in the case of an emergency, but it is usually discouraged in ordinary circumstances. The priest is delegated by the congregation and the bishop to represent the church in a baptism. A priest would then be authorized to enter the baptism in the parish registry. If a lay person does the baptism how is the child entered in the registry? The registry is an important legal document when it comes to applying for government benefits and there are not other legal records other than the registry.

There is a way of getting the child entered onto the parish registry. It happened with my brother. When he was born, he was premature. My parents asked a nurse to baptize him because they were concerned he could have died. After they brought him home they brought him before the congregation and reaffirmed the vows.

When I was a seminarian I was doing a training in a regional hospital. One night I was on call and was called up to the OB/GYN ward. They had a woman who had broken both of her legs and had a urinary tract infection. She had a high fever and was delirious. She thought she was going to die and wanted to be baptized. I first tried to encourage her to wait until the morning after the fever had broken, but she was insistent. I finally agreed to the baptism and performed it with her family and a couple of nurses as witnesses.

After the baptism, I was filling some registration papers at the nurses' station when one of the nurses said the fever had broken. I followed up a couple of more times while she was in the hospital and eventually referred her to a congregation where she came from.

In this case I had not been delegated by anyone to do a baptism, but it was considered an emergency situation and was accepted as such.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I just stood as sponsor for three little ones whose parents have little to no contact with the church/ faith, for a variety of reasons. The main reason I'm involved is because we can't count on the parents, and those bringing them to baptism (yes, with consent) are very elderly or iffy for other reasons in the long term.

I'm worried of course. But it is a very very serious thing to refuse someone baptism. So we're doing what we can from the human side.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is the old lady a member?

Yes. A regular and active member.

I understand there's an issue about doing things the parent doesn't want, but it should be easy to telephone the parent and ask, to be sure.

And in the case my friend who was told no (a number of years ago) the parent was the one asking for baptism of the child (not because of belief but because it is what you do), he was rejected on the grounds "you aren't a member of this church any more, you don't live in the area any more, you should have your child baptized in your current church." Which puzzled my friend because in his mind this was his only church, even though he had moved 500 miles away.

(Which points to an intriguing pattern I've noticed in some who have drifted away from Christianity into self-labeled atheism -- a continuing emotional tie to the church they grew up in.)

So I'm wondering if there are theological reasons lay people should stay away from baptizing some categories of babies. The people involved in planning an alternative baptism would listen to and consider arguments. And I'm curious on a theoretical basis.

[ 10. December 2012, 00:17: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I wouldn't baptize the child without the parents permission and I wouldn't call to ask for it. The great grandmother can get her grandchildren to call the priest, make an appointment, and request baptism. Otherwise, the great grandmother can keep bringing the child to church until he/she is old enough to make a personal confession of faith.

Also, a child should be baptized in the worship space used by the faith community that will be supporting the parents in raising the child in the Christian faith. Unless parents own a jet, a church which is 500 miles away isn't going to do that. How can you seriously promise to raise your children in the Christian faith and not bothered to find a church where you live?

Sorry, we are Episcopalians. We actually have a theology of baptism and an ecclesiology. If just want somebody with a robe to sprinkle water on the babies head in a pretty building without asking any questions or having any expectations, try working something out with the Unitarians or just do it yourself. Why not?

Posted by the gnome (# 14156) on :

An interesting OP, and one that strikes close to home for me.

When my wife and I adopted a baby boy, we were told that his birth mother's one request was that he be baptized Catholic.

My wife's parents are devout Catholics, and my mother-in-law has been taking my daughter to Mass several times a year, so we asked mum-in-law to approach her parish priest to request baptism for Babyboy. She was told that they wouldn't baptize him even if she was willing to commit (with our consent) to teaching him about Catholicism and taking him to Mass whenever possible. The sticking point was the fact that most Sundays our son would be attending my church (amalgamated Congregational/Episcopal) with me.

In the end we had to choose between not having him baptized at all, or having him baptized in my church. We went with the latter option. From a theological point of view, of course, an Episcopal or Congregational baptism should be fine--after all, our baptisms are deemed sacramentally valid by the RCC--but it does represent a rejection of the birth mother's explicit request, and that irks and saddens me.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I wouldn't baptize the child without the parents permission and I wouldn't call to ask for it. The great grandmother can get her grandchildren to call the priest, make an appointment, and request baptism. Otherwise, the great grandmother can keep bringing the child to church until he/she is old enough to make a personal confession of faith.

Also, a child should be baptized in the worship space used by the faith community that will be supporting the parents in raising the child in the Christian faith. Unless parents own a jet, a church which is 500 miles away isn't going to do that. How can you seriously promise to raise your children in the Christian faith and not bothered to find a church where you live?

Sorry, we are Episcopalians. We actually have a theology of baptism and an ecclesiology. If just want somebody with a robe to sprinkle water on the babies head in a pretty building without asking any questions or having any expectations, try working something out with the Unitarians or just do it yourself. Why not?

weeeellll..... my sister lives in CA. my parents and I live(d) on the East Coast. when my nephew was born, my sister wanted him baptized (her husband was Jewish), but she had just moved to a new town, and there was no Orthodox Church there.. so she came "home" to have her son baptised in the Church which she attended as a child, where she herself was baptized. Because she had married a non-christian there was that issue to deal with. In any case, the Godparents live here (one is my husband, the other my sister's childhood best friend). so she did have her child baptized thousands of miles away from where she lived. I realized that's not quite the scenario you are talking about, but that's what happened (and you certainly can't say that we Orthodox lack a theology of B aptism).

In russia during soviet times many children were baptized secretly, often without the knowledge of parents (by grandparents or other relatives) with definitely no guarantee of regular church attendance. For many that was the only way. People who did this risked their jobs (if they had them).. which explains why it was often grandmothers who had no job to risk, although that certainly was not the only reason. I believe the feeling was that indeed, the child was being baptized into Christ, not into a particular church, and that the baptism would aid the child (spiritually).

I agree with you that having a child baptized JUST to have the ceremony is wrong (just as having a church wedding JUST for the ambiance is wrong).. but there are times when the best option is to trust in the power of God to work despite the lack of church attendance.

Ideally baptism does two things (IMHO)... to put one in union with God and with the Church (in the sense of active participation).. if only one of these can be done, it's better than nothing, isn't it?

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I wouldn't baptize the child without the parents permission and I wouldn't call to ask for it.

I wouldn't baptize without permission, but I would call to ask for it. I think baptism's important enough for it to be worth me spending five minutes on the phone.

In the Catholic Church, the canons only give two possible reasons for refusing infant baptism: if neither parent gives consent; or if there is no founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic (canon 868). If the comparable situation came up and greatgrandma were Catholic, the baptism would happen.

the gnome's situation is an unfortunate one. The adoptive parents (who are treated as the parents in the canons) certainly did a praise-worthy thing, both in adopting and in trying to meet the birth-mother's request. While consent of the parents was present, I can see why the Catholic clergy would have doubts about the chance of the baby being raised Catholic. Catholics have certain obligations, such as to attend Mass each Sunday. An Anglican service does not fulfill the obligation and imposing an obligation on a baby that they are unlikely to meet is rather unfair. Especially given that the baby would still receive the sacrament of baptism, I could see them deciding that it was better for him to be baptized by the Episcopalians if that is how he was to be raised.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Lamb Chopped. You say it is a very serious thing to refuse someone baptism. Where do you get that idea?

Are you referring to the verse where the parents were wanting to bring the children to Jesus and the disciples were trying to prevent them from doing so? Jesus told the disciples if anyone offended the little children it would be better that a milestone were hung around their neck and drowned in the bottom of the sea,

I think you may be misreading the passage. First, it says the parents were bringing the children to Jesus. In the case sited I am uncertain if the parents are even involved in bringing the child.

Second, if the child were baptized and the parents refused to bring the child to church, then aren't the parents offending their children to there own detriment?

Please do not stand in for parents who are refusing to bring their children to baptism. If you take the scripture at its word you may be placing the parents in a very bad place.

No, it is best to try to continue to bring the child to church and teach him/her as much as possible until the child can make the decision for himself/herself--which is usually at about the same age we would have confirmed a baptized child.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I wouldn't baptize the child without the parents permission and I wouldn't call to ask for it. The great grandmother can get her grandchildren to call the priest, make an appointment, and request baptism. Otherwise, the great grandmother can keep bringing the child to church until he/she is old enough to make a personal confession of faith.

Also, a child should be baptized in the worship space used by the faith community that will be supporting the parents in raising the child in the Christian faith. Unless parents own a jet, a church which is 500 miles away isn't going to do that. How can you seriously promise to raise your children in the Christian faith and not bothered to find a church where you live?

Sorry, we are Episcopalians. We actually have a theology of baptism and an ecclesiology. If just want somebody with a robe to sprinkle water on the babies head in a pretty building without asking any questions or having any expectations, try working something out with the Unitarians or just do it yourself. Why not?

I think Unitarian Universalists would balk at baptism without the parents' consent and most of their congregations do a dedication ceremony (which would also require parental consent) and which take place during Sunday worship. I suspect only congregants would be understand and be happy with dedication ceremonies so non-regulars would be rare (and might not be allowed). I suspect baptisms by most UU ministers would be rare and done to adults or, with the consent of the parents, to older consenting children.

My local university chapel (non-denominational) does baptisms three times a year during Sunday worship and most baptisms are of children of non-regulars. Personally I think they should only baptize teens or adults old enough to consent on their own and who do (I guess I'm a baptist atheist). Chapel weddings do require university affiliation and pre-marital counseling.

BTW the parents 500 miles away may be living in an area with no church whose theology they agree with sufficiently nearby; what should they do? UUs frequently run into that problem which is why they have a 'congregation' consisting of those who can't easily access a physical UU congregation. They keep in contact mostly by internet (though by mail to those UUs in prison and jail). Not sure how they handle dedication ceremonies in this congregation.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Going to gnome's situation.

I think some of us would argue that if the child was baptized by an Episcopalian priest, or curate then the child was baptized into the catholic faith. Even if the child was baptized by a Congregational minister using the Trinitarian formula (In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit), then the child is still baptized into the catholic faith.

While you have tried to honor the birth mother's request, legally you are not obligated to do so if you can't. BTW, is your adoption an open adoption. Will the birth mother continue a part of your child's life? I would certainly hope so. But that is a topic of another thread on a different board.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

It seems to me that great grandmama is treating baptism like a magic spell rather than the beginning of a life in the Church. I assume the priest is thinking of baptism as the first step of a journey that takes place in the Christian Church -- if someone is not intending to take that journey, then baptism is reduced to something very much like a magical incantation -- or like Achilles' mother dipping him in the Styx.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Net Spinster:
BTW the parents 500 miles away may be living in an area with no church whose theology they agree with sufficiently nearby; what should they do?

Pick the one they disagree with the least. Parents so attached to one denomination that they can't find another church to attend should know their church's policy on baptism. Baptism isn't into a particular church. However, our liturgy does assume participation in a local church.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Gramps44, you are assuming way too much. I did NOT have that passage in mind, nor am I taking the parents' place. I am acting as godmother. And a good thing too for reasons I'll not go into here. As for why it's a serious thing to refuse baptism, this flows directly out of what I understand Scripture to teach regarding God's gift of the new birth through the washing of water and the Word. I gather you have a very different view of baptism, and I see no point in arguing about it here. But there's nothing in Scripture makes me at all comfortable with the idea of flatly refusing anyone this gift, particularly a child. I don't want to be answerable for that someday. Though of course that means I have to pick up as much as I can of the consequences of saying yes in a dodgy situation, such as where Grandma may soon die and leave the child in a wholly unChristian situation. Hence the need to put my commitment where my mouth is.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that great grandmama is treating baptism like a magic spell rather than the beginning of a life in the Church.

I think my friend who had drifted away from Christianity may have -- well, not even a magic spell, just that getting your kids baptized is what you are supposed to do, a holdover from the 50s that all good people go to church whether or not they believe. I could certainly see refusing baptism when asked by Atheist parents, but that was not the reason he was given, only that he was no longer a member of that church.

The great grandmother with the now one month old baby is apparently actively involved in the child's life, brings it to church almost every week (although today she had the baby's 3 year old sister instead), speaks of being kept awake all night by the baby (who sleeps all day and is awake all night).

It's an interesting question though, why does any grandparent want their grandkids baptized? Which goes back to the question, what is baptism all about? Is it only for babies whose both parents are active members of a specific congregation, or something broader? One friend today said when she was younger baptism was essential as early as possible to protect the baby from Limbo in case of early death. That theology seems to have changed for most? all?

Is baptism today just a promise to rear the kid Christian, the ceremony itself has no spiritual effect? Thinking it does is "magical thinking?"

Jesus seems to encourage baptism. Why?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Now why would Atheist parents want to have their child baptized?

Makes no sense.

Baptism is not magic. It is a means through which the Holy Spirit delivers the grace of Christ and works to create faith in Christ. But without faith, baptism does not save. For faith is a refusal to accept the gifts of God in Christ. It would be like a person trying to give you a gift, but refusing to take that gift or sending it back. The gift would have been real but we ourselves acted to refuse it. It is only through unbelief that we can undo the work of God.

Hence one can be saved without baptism. For it is faith in Christ, however the Holy Spirit has created it {rather just through the Word or through the Word and the Water of baptism} that saves. It is only unbelief that condemns.

NAB Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Faith is required in baptism. Those who reject the one who it connects us to, Jesus Christ and Him crucified, cannot expect to be saved because they have been baptized.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Is baptism today just a promise to rear the kid Christian, the ceremony itself has no spiritual effect? Thinking it does is "magical thinking?"

No. Baptism is the sacrament of entrance into the Christian faith. It stands in relation to Christianity as circumcision does to Judaism.

quote:
Jesus seems to encourage baptism. Why?

See previous answer.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

My daughter wanted her son baptized in the church at which they were married, but the minister refused because my daughter is a nurse, her husband a policeman, both do shift work and could therefore not be at church every Sunday. The minister insisted that this was a requirement! They went to another church where they were welcomed. The minister there said he would never turn anyone away as he hoped that by treating them with open arms they would feel welcome to return. My daughter, husband and children are now communicant members of that church. Now which minister showed Christian love?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

bib

Your illustration and question is not on topic.

I am pleased, though, your daughter and son in law found a welcoming church and are active members of that church.

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

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that great grandmama is treating baptism like a magic spell...

Hey - that's my line; unfortunately given what Rome seems to believe, for them it IS magic*. Which provides liberals with covering fire to indulge in their smudging of the sharp distinction between believers and non-believers, which they like to think doesn't really exist, but which baptism clearly illustrates.

The 'pastoral' question of who should be eligible to have their kids baptised is fraught - and we've had several long threads on it in the recent past, but I have to admit that the question of a grandparent as the presenter rather than the parent, where the parent is still on the scene, is a new one. However the idea of a lay person doing a baptism against the explicit decision of the local priest needs to be commented on: this is a direct act of rebellion against church order, and the priest needs to get the bishop involved to tell her that it will result in their excommunication - or at least should, if the bishop has any understanding of their responsibility.

* I've found one Catholic writer willing to admit that the Catholic theology of baptism is the same as the understanding of magic in certain animist religions

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that great grandmama is treating baptism like a magic spell rather than the beginning of a life in the Church.

It seems that for many parents past and present, baptism served as a way of ensuring God's blessing upon a child. It didn't require an active form of religious observance on the part of either parents or child.

Baptism must be one of the most striking examples of where 'folk religion' differs significantly from orthodox Christian theology.

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

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that great grandmama is treating baptism like a magic spell rather than the beginning of a life in the Church.
It seems that for many parents past and present, baptism served as a way of ensuring God's blessing upon a child. It didn't require an active form of religious observance on the part of either parents or child.

Baptism must be one of the most striking examples of where 'folk religion' differs significantly from orthodox Christian theology.

Given that the Book of Common Prayer Baptism rubrics say:

quote:
It is certain by God's Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.

it seems that 'folk religion' might have some official sanction [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Which provides liberals with covering fire to indulge in their smudging of the sharp distinction between believers and non-believers, which they like to think doesn't really exist, but which baptism clearly illustrates.

Allow me to smudge it further with my own testimony, in that case.

I have four kids. At the time our eldest was born, we were not yet churchgoers and although it's hard to remember that far back (cough) I think my own faith was somewhere between folk religion and an semi-informed assent to the major doctrines of Christianity. I'm fairly sure when we took him to the local Methodist place that was the closest thing we had at the time to a home church, it was with the intention of having him baptised into the body of Christ, the family of God, however we saw it then but whatever it was in our minds it was that-which-we-had-and-valued and that-which-he-had-not and we wanted to cure that. The one thing we did not go for was meaningless ritual, societal acceptance (don't make me laugh) or in order to get him into a CofE school. The Minister talked us into having a dedication instead, for which believing what I do now... but I'd best leave that train of thought here.

Second child came along and we were starting to think about baptisms again. I'd moved on in my own faith journey. I wanted to be a Christian but things stood in the way - societal pressures, psychological blocks, I don't know. Perhaps I'm just making excuses but I needed several highly uncomfortable pushes from life before I made the commitment. Anyway, we had our second child baptised in our CofE parish church. I didn't cross my fingers when I made the promise to bring him up as a Christian because I fully intended to do so, I was just not going to bring him to Sunday School next week. It took a couple of years, as it turns out.

By the time children #3 and #4 entered this world we were active, churchgoing, confirmed and communion-receiving Anglicans so the question didn't arise. Our eldest was baptised as an older child, for the record.

The point is that looking back it seems clear to me that those encounters, particular the baptism of child #2 without being active Christians or even reasonably orthodox believers, were great advances in the journey of our family into the Church. The reason liberals smudge the line is because it's genuinely blurry. Which side of it would you have put me then? I don't think I could tell you myself whether I was a Christian or not by a faith or orthodoxy test. And although the point of baptism leading to engagement with a local congregation is a good one, the sense I had of the body of Christ existing independently of the local churches I still have. If every other Christian in the world was killed, if every Christian temple was razed to the ground, every cross and every icon of Christ smashed to pieces, and I lived I would still be in that body along with those who'd gone before me.

quote:
However the idea of a lay person doing a baptism against the explicit decision of the local priest needs to be commented on: this is a direct act of rebellion against church order, and the priest needs to get the bishop involved to tell her that it will result in their excommunication - or at least should, if the bishop has any understanding of their responsibility.

I'm astonished you think priests should have this power given your position on Holy Tradition. On the precise question of Church order, I took no oaths to obey priests when I was confirmed nor did my parents and godparents take oaths on my behalf to do so when I was baptised. I am not in holy orders. It's vanishingly unlikely that I would ever be asked to baptise someone against the wishes of the parish priest, and it's even more unlikely that I would be unable to find a way out of the problem by spreading the net a little wider than one denomination and one parish, but if push came to shove I would act according to my conscience, not the orders of one priest.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

A question to clarify (part of) the issue: if anyone dies who is unbaptised, do they go to hell?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that great grandmama is treating baptism like a magic spell rather than the beginning of a life in the Church.
Jesus seems to encourage baptism. Why?

He encouraged infant baptism as much as he encouraged riding unicorns.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
My daughter wanted her son baptized in the church at which they were married, but the minister refused because my daughter is a nurse, her husband a policeman, both do shift work and could therefore not be at church every Sunday. The minister insisted that this was a requirement! They went to another church where they were welcomed. The minister there said he would never turn anyone away as he hoped that by treating them with open arms they would feel welcome to return. My daughter, husband and children are now communicant members of that church. Now which minister showed Christian love?

Both of them. They just showed it in different ways.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that great grandmama is treating baptism like a magic spell rather than the beginning of a life in the Church.
Jesus seems to encourage baptism. Why?
He encouraged infant baptism as much as he encouraged riding unicorns.

He also discouraged it as much as he discouraged riding unicorns. I'm not sure we can learn a lot from his words on subjects he didn't mention.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that great grandmama is treating baptism like a magic spell rather than the beginning of a life in the Church.
Jesus seems to encourage baptism. Why?
He encouraged infant baptism as much as he encouraged riding unicorns.
He also discouraged it as much as he discouraged riding unicorns. I'm not sure we can learn a lot from his words on subjects he didn't mention.

Agreed. Which is why the "let the little children come to me" text is just about the most abused text in the bible when it comes to the baptism debate.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Jesus seems to encourage baptism. Why?
He encouraged infant baptism as much as he encouraged riding unicorns.

I don't disagree, having been baptized (again) as an adult believer, wow what an experience! But neither do I feel compelled to impose any specific theology of baptism on someone else.

The old lady (she's only 70!) is an Episcopalian, that church thinks infant baptism is normal, half the congregation are former Catholics who were reared that baptism is essential and should be done as early as possible (they know the RCC has changed it's teaching on this but early training still echoes in adults). If infant baptism is what the people expect and do, the only question is why infant baptism systems withhold baptism from some infants brought to them, and when it's appropriate for a substitute baptism.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
bib

Your illustration and question is not on topic.

?? It's an illustration of yes there are different standards in different churches of which babies will be baptized. If some churches won't even baptize a member's baby, then rejection of a baby is not necessarily specific to the child being a grand baby or great grand.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Can an unbaptized person be saved?

Yes, all if the person has faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. This faith comes through the hearing of the Word. Baptism is a means of grace in which the Word is combined with the water to instill and nurture faith.

I would like to think the parable of the sower applies to this story. Some of the seeds will fall on the path--or hard ground--and the seeds cannot grow. Others will fall among thorns and rocks. They grow for a short while but soon die out. Others will fall on good soil where they produced a great bounty.

I know those who say baptize everyone in all situations will jump on this and say, "There it is: we should baptize everyone at the drop of the hat." But I think this is a broomstick theology--by broomstick theology I am referring to when Western Missionaries first went to India, they were so overwhelmed with the mass of people, they took a broom dipped it in water and just flung the water over the crowds. Just because someone is baptized, without faith, it does not save.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

bib's illustration was about marriage, not baptism.

I do not think anyone is advocating the right of a priest to refuse to baptize child of a member of the congregation. The OP is talking about the child who is a great granddaughter of a member, but the parents are not members. I am thinking the parents are not going to any church, and the implication is that they have not even given permission for the child to be baptized.

Now, in the case of the parents wanting to bring the child back to the home congregation for baptism, even though they are no longer members of the congregation, but are members somewhere else, I would have no problems with that baptism going forward, though I would think it is the duty of the priest doing the baptism to get permission from the minister of the congregation where the parents attend, or at least notify the minister that the child has been baptized so the minister can provide follow up spiritual care.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Can an unbaptized person be saved?

Yes, all if the person has faith in Jesus Christ as Lord... Just because someone is baptized, without faith, it does not save.

That raises the question "whose faith?" Stepping around the "infant baptism vs believers baptism" argument, if a adult's faith is substituting for or carrying the infant's faith, must it be the parent (or legal guardian) providing that faith? Or can another person who is very involved in the infant's care provide the faith? Like a grandparent? Or a long term nanny?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Baptism is the opening of a door. One then needs to enter and make a home in faith. It is true that in adult conversion, baptism is the fulfilment of a long journey under the aid of God's grace. Yet still, it is false to say that this profession of faith is in itself all there is to Christianity, with the rest that follows being minor details. Rather, such conversion is like a long journey through the wilderness that leads to a door. It may have been a million hard steps long, yet still, the weary traveller at that point merely opens a door.

Any child standing on the door step can push open the door and slip in just as easily. And indeed, parents with a baby in their arms can open the door and step through it with the baby, just as much as the man or woman who had to brave many adventures to even get to the door. The Lord gives the same wages to those who laboured long and hard in the vineyard, and to those who barely flexed a finger. And for that which is to come, living in the house of faith, the hardened traveller and the baby in the parent's arm are in a sense just the same. For both were born anew when they stepped through.

So was all the hard travel in vain? I don't think so. For the baby carried into the house, it is all too easy to take that life for granted. Familiarity can breed contempt and the rightful need to become one's own man or woman may become confused with the need to step out of the house. The traveller however knows the dark, the cold and how monsters howl in the night. Out there. The traveller really likes that door, and in particular being on the right side of it. And that is something paid dearly for and valuable for life.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
A question to clarify (part of) the issue: if anyone dies who is unbaptised, do they go to hell?

Let's put it this way. Those who lack sanctifying grace go to hell. Sanctifying grace is not a part of human nature but a Divine gift, hence we are not normally born with it. Baptism does confer sanctifying grace. Can God provide sanctifying grace apart from baptism? Yes. Has He done so? Yes. For example, we firmly believe that the heroes of the OT are now in heaven. Do we know that God will do so in any other individual case apart from baptism? No. So while we do not know that the unbaptised will go to hell, and in many cases have reasons to hope that they will rather go to heaven (innocent infants, faithful Jews, righteous non-Christians, ...), it would mean tempting the Lord if we slacked on baptising our own or bringing new converts to baptism.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's put it this way. Those who lack sanctifying grace go to hell. Sanctifying grace is not a part of human nature but a Divine gift, hence we are not normally born with it. Baptism does confer sanctifying grace. Can God provide sanctifying grace apart from baptism? Yes. Has He done so? Yes. For example, we firmly believe that the heroes of the OT are now in heaven. Do we know that God will do so in any other individual case apart from baptism? No. So while we do not know that the unbaptised will go to hell, and in many cases have reasons to hope that they will rather go to heaven (innocent infants, faithful Jews, righteous non-Christians, ...), it would mean tempting the Lord if we slacked on baptising our own or bringing new converts to baptism.

Put that way it all seems rather close to our salvation being determined by our works rather than God's grace.

So then, the funeral I took for the the twin babies who died in utero at 21 weeks was a waste of time and I'm damned as a heretic for doing it?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

InGoB did mention 'innocent infants' EE, so I presume that would include the unborn.

I don't often defend InGoB, but I suspect yours is something of a particular kind of Protestant over-reaction. Sure, the RCs can sound as if they are talking about salvation by works - but then a lot of evangelical (and particularly charismatic evangelical) Protestants sound as if they are making faith INTO a work.

Listen out for it. Once you start to detect it you'll be irritated by it for the rest of your life ...

[Biased]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry, I meant EM not EE, it's ExclamationMark not Eytemological Evangelical.

Whoops.

The point remains though.

Heresy is as heresy does. InGoB will already have you down as an heretick from some kind of heretical conventicle purely by virtue of the fact that you aren't Roman Catholic. So it's a bit of an academic point whether he'd regard you as being even more so for conducting the funeral of the twins ...

[Votive]

I wouldn't be surprised to find, though, that the RCs have rites and ceremonies for such circumstances too.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Put that way it all seems rather close to our salvation being determined by our works rather than God's grace.

It seems to me almost precisely the opposite. Salvation is only possible by God's grace. Being a good person does not, cannot save you. Only God can save. Through the gracious unmerited gift of God's revelation, we know that baptism is a means of that grace. What does smack of works-righteousness is what you'll often hear from people that so-and-so must be in heaven, because they did so much good in their lives.

I actually don't know the details about funeral rites for the unborn, but I do know that the Catholic hospital I used to work at did a monthly memorial service for all miscarried babies and that the nurses and spiritual care department treated human remains with the utmost respect.

Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I wouldn't baptize the child without the parents permission and I wouldn't call to ask for it. The great grandmother can get her grandchildren to call the priest, make an appointment, and request baptism. Otherwise, the great grandmother can keep bringing the child to church until he/she is old enough to make a personal confession of faith.

Also, a child should be baptized in the worship space used by the faith community that will be supporting the parents in raising the child in the Christian faith. Unless parents own a jet, a church which is 500 miles away isn't going to do that. How can you seriously promise to raise your children in the Christian faith and not bothered to find a church where you live?

Sorry, we are Episcopalians. We actually have a theology of baptism and an ecclesiology. If just want somebody with a robe to sprinkle water on the babies head in a pretty building without asking any questions or having any expectations, try working something out with the Unitarians or just do it yourself. Why not?

Is this an approach full of pastoral sensitivity and respect for others ?

Is this kind of approach why more people turn away from the churches ?

If I was trying to explore my local green bowls club, for instance, but unsure of its protocols, would they act in such an unhelpful or obstructive manner ?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Put that way it all seems rather close to our salvation being determined by our works rather than God's grace.

I've given up ridiculing Protestants for their solas for Advent.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
So then, the funeral I took for the the twin babies who died in utero at 21 weeks was a waste of time and I'm damned as a heretic for doing it?

The RCC declares that we are people from conception, so certainly 21 weeks later we can say that two human persons died there. The RCC advises that miscarried babies should be baptized if there is any hope that there is live in them. But, if those twins were stillborn, then they would receive the burial rites of unbaptized children. And like for all of these, the priest would express his hope that they shall be saved by the mercy of God.

(Incidentally, this remains the strongest argument for assuming that unbaptized children will go to heaven. Lex orandi, lex credendi. (The law of prayer is the law of belief.) Aside from this we do have contend with St Augustine, who really was neither an asshole nor an idiot.)

[ 10. December 2012, 21:33: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by the gnome (# 14156) on :

Hart, you're right that there are doubts about the chance of Babyboy being raised [Roman] Catholic. He would, however, be more likely to decide to be Catholic as an adult if he knew that that was the church he had been baptized into. Or so it seems to me, anyway. And there's no doubt that he would be raised with continuing exposure to the Catholic faith and support in that faith from a close family member. To me it seems that his attending Christian-but-not-RCC church services on a regular basis and going to Mass when possible would be much more desirable than not attending church at all most Sundays, as is the case with most of the children baptized Catholic.

Gramps, my wife and I would have welcomed an open adoption, but in this case the birth mother took herself out of the picture soon after the birth. She could conceivably make moves to establish contact someday, but at the moment that doesn't seem likely.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

IngoB:

quote:
I've given up ridiculing Protestants for their solas for Advent.

Quote thread!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
IngoB:
quote:
I've given up ridiculing Protestants for their solas for Advent.

Quote thread!

Seconded!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's put it this way. Those who lack sanctifying grace go to hell. Sanctifying grace is not a part of human nature but a Divine gift, hence we are not normally born with it. Baptism does confer sanctifying grace. Can God provide sanctifying grace apart from baptism? Yes. Has He done so? Yes. For example, we firmly believe that the heroes of the OT are now in heaven. Do we know that God will do so in any other individual case apart from baptism? No. So while we do not know that the unbaptised will go to hell, and in many cases have reasons to hope that they will rather go to heaven (innocent infants, faithful Jews, righteous non-Christians, ...), it would mean tempting the Lord if we slacked on baptising our own or bringing new converts to baptism.
Put that way it all seems rather close to our salvation being determined by our works rather than God's grace.

So then, the funeral I took for the the twin babies who died in utero at 21 weeks was a waste of time and I'm damned as a heretic for doing it?

Salvation is a work of God alone and baptism is one of the means by which this grace is conferred. Doesn't faith count as 'works'? It requires effort on our part. Yet for some reason those who believe in sola fide seem to think it's less effort than the baptism of infants...
[Paranoid]

Those of us who don't believe in salvation by faith alone do believe in salvation by God's grace alone.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Those of us who don't believe in salvation by faith alone do believe in salvation by God's grace alone. [/QUOTE

Well .... those of us who believe in faith alone would say that faith is a work only in so far as it is an active, personal response to an initiative of a loving God. To that extent it is interdependant with grace - it is grace that provides for faith to operate.

Faith without works means nothing and is pretty much intellectual assent at that level as opposed to a wholehearted engagement with God.

Grace is mediated in many ways but I don't believe for one moment that baptism confers saving grace. It is a sign of what you already are or as in the case of infant baptism, a sign of commitment to helping the child come into faith.

To say that baptism brings anyone into the church seems rather a strange idea to me - to say that it is a visible sign of something that's already happened makes much more sense. Grace is inevitably present in baptism through the testimony of the act not through any power conferred by the act. I don't doubt - because I've actively seen it happen - that "something" does happen at baptism, but I'd never see it as being salvation per se. It's a reinforcement of it yes, a filling, a sacrament (sign), it's sacred yes, -- but it doesn't save. Period.

If that were the case then the vast numbers of people baptised as babies who never give so much as a nod to the church for the rest of their lives are in the same position with God for eternity, as those who, in sacrifice and love devote their lives to serving God.

If as some claim baptism is the only means to saving grace, then the funerals of 5 still borns I've taken in the last year are doomed to a Christless eternity. I know enough of God not to believe that.

If you embrace a living faith in God then you will want to express that and should be encouraged to do so. I'd be quite concerned about someone who did embrace faith and who didn't want to be baptised (or whatever your faith tradition's rite of passage is), as that shows amongst other things their willingness to be identified with Christ. But, and I understand for some, that it is a big but, baptism hasn't and won't save them in its simple act.

To promote infant baptism (or any) as a kind of "magic" as some do is irresponsible and tragic (and in DH territory here) hardly to be supported from scripture.

I don't think wholesale infant baptism does any harm and I'd never stop it but look at it as dedication and you're ok from my POV. It's interesting too how the argument on baptism is linked to Jewish practices of circumcision and bar mitzvah.

For a start girls weren't circumcised. Then in that culture every boy but every boy entered the community at about 12/13 in a Bar mitzvah. (Jesus being left behind in Jerusalem seems likely to have been after His). There was no concept of opting out as a BM conferred a religious and social status. The same isn't true for 12/13 y/o's today so the picture breaks down.

What about the girls in this old explanation - 2nd class citizens. Do you want to keep reinforcing that - if so, don't baptise girl babies and don't confirm women! if you're basing your entry into the community on an old Jewish rite, then logically you should follow it to the letter. I don't see even the most extreme misongynists in the CofE doing that!

Although Mrs Mark and I both believe the above it didn't stop her, as a nurse, personally baptising dying babies at parents' requests. That is grace - they were already saved but in the instant of baptism knew the touch of God on earth too.

I appreciate that i am far from a high church anglican but I am more sympathetic to sacraments than many would think or imagine. It's just that I see the sacraments as rather different in application but from the common source.

Enjoy Northampton and all it has to offer - I'll be there (or at least east Northants) tomorrow!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE] I

1. 've given up ridiculing Protestants for their solas for Advent.

2. The RCC declares that we are people from conception

3. But, if those twins were stillborn, then they would receive the burial rites of unbaptized children. And like for all of these, the priest would express his hope that they shall be saved by the mercy of God.

1. That's a pity, as I haven't given up burning catholics (Shouts off screen: "Eugene, the chain saw and the portable stake please and (laughs) make the wood particularly damp for this one").

2. You, me and many others too. Not a unique belief.

3. Just the hope? I'd only use hope there in the context of certainty not possibility. No need for baptism because no sin has been committed. The mercy of God here is that he doesn't strike the priest dead on the spot as this is one place where one can speak of assurance (and with reassurance).

If he cannot speak of more than a possible hope then what comfort is that to believing (or to any) parents.

In the past year I've conducted 5 such funerals, including the twins, and I've been totally and 100% convinced of the love of God (more than ever before) towards those children and assured of the final resting place for them. I hope that's comforted their parents: any expression of doubt as to that fact amounts to abuse of vulnerable adults in my book. I accept that as a non RCC some will see my involvement as beyond the pale but on this one I'm content to let God do the deciding ....

[ 11. December 2012, 06:59: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
InGoB did mention 'innocent infants' EE, so I presume that would include the unborn.

I don't often defend InGoB, but I suspect yours is something of a particular kind of Protestant over-reaction. Sure, the RCs can sound as if they are talking about salvation by works - but then a lot of evangelical (and particularly charismatic evangelical) Protestants sound as if they are making faith INTO a work.

Listen out for it. Once you start to detect it you'll be irritated by it for the rest of your life ...

Thanks - except for one thing .... i wouldn't self identify as a protestant these days.

Yes I also accept that thing about faith too and yes it doe wind me up but so does an insistence that you have to do "something" to make you "be" something.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I absolutely don't believe that baptism is the only means to saving grace (and neither does IngoB as he pointed out above), nor do I believe that baptism saves in a 'dipping in the Styx' kind of way, just that it is a way (not the only way) of opening the door to salvation. It's symbolic of belonging to the family of God in the same way that sharing a surname in the West usually indicates belonging to a particular family. You can be part of a family without sharing the surname (I don't share a surname with my mum or stepdad) and you can unfortunately not be part of a family even if you were given their surname, but usually sharing a surname is symbolic of being given the 'grace' of belonging to that family. I also regard dedication ceremonies to be equivalent to infant baptism in that sense, although not a sacrament.

As for what happens to unbaptised infants, nobody knows but I believe God's grace is available without hindrance to innocent infants (and those of similar innocence eg developmentally disabled people). Turning that on its head, EM, do you not think that baptism of those who cannot make a faith decision whether due to age, developmental disabilities etc can be how they are saved? The problem for me with sola fide is that it does require some kind of intellectual response to God - I know it's the heart that matters for those who believe in faith alone, but there needs to be something for the heart to respond to. Not everyone CAN have the mental capacity to have faith.

With regards to circumcision v baptism and only males receiving circumcision, I believe that is one of the ways the Old Covenant was an incomplete shadow of the New Covenant. Baptism is open to girls just like belonging to the Body is open to gentiles.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
InGoB did mention 'innocent infants' EE, so I presume that would include the unborn.

I don't often defend InGoB, but I suspect yours is something of a particular kind of Protestant over-reaction. Sure, the RCs can sound as if they are talking about salvation by works - but then a lot of evangelical (and particularly charismatic evangelical) Protestants sound as if they are making faith INTO a work.

Listen out for it. Once you start to detect it you'll be irritated by it for the rest of your life ...

Thanks - except for one thing .... i wouldn't self identify as a protestant these days.

Yes I also accept that thing about faith too and yes it doe wind me up but so does an insistence that you have to do "something" to make you "be" something.

I come at sola fide from the opposite angle - for me it is very restrictive in how grace is administered to us by God. I'm not 'by works alone' [Biased]

For me doing something to be something is more natural than the alternative, but I see doing something as an optional extra to being something if that makes any sense? I don't see works as ways of gaining spiritual brownie points, but just more channels for God's grace to flow through.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. You, me and many others too. Not a unique belief.

I didn't claim that it was unique. It is however an important backdrop to questions about funerals. I do not have a funeral for my hair cuttings and fingernail clippings. And if, God forbid, I lost my finger, then I would not have a funeral for that either. It might well get buried in the ground, but I would not treat it like a dead person. That a funeral is given for these stillborn twins says something important about what they were, namely human persons.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
3. Just the hope? I'd only use hope there in the context of certainty not possibility.

Yes, just hope. In the full meaning of the word, i.e., very much including the possibility that this hope will not be realized.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
No need for baptism because no sin has been committed.

But no guarantee either of heaven for the mere absence of actual sin. We do not deserve heaven. We cannot achieve heaven by keeping ourselves free from sin. It is not merely the practical difficulty of keeping free of sin that prevents us from making our own way into heaven (a difficulty that dead babies then "circumvent" by virtue of dying early). Rather we do not naturally possess sanctifying grace. This heirloom of the human race was lost by Adam. By nature we cannot live eternally in the presence of God, we do require grace for that, and no human effort can create such grace.

God of course can give sanctifying grace to every dying infant, if He so wishes. But the argument that He must be doing so is in the end a variant of universalism. And I do reject universalism. If God must do something, then it is not a grace, but an intrinsic necessity (e.g., God must indeed give humans a human soul, simply because otherwise they are not humans, and He would be creating merely another kind of ape). Salvation is not an intrinsic necessity for human beings. Furthermore, there is no clear indication in either scripture or tradition that God will save all the infants. Really, there isn't. If at all, to the contrary, there are powerful statements from both that baptism is necessary for salvation. As I've said previously, St Augustine was neither an asshole nor an idiot.

Personally, I think the theological hypothesis of a limbo of infants (in its late iterations) remains as compelling as ever. Modern nay-sayers concerning this theory of course include BXVI, though not in a binding fashion so far (and while I regard him highly as a theologian, I do believe that he is wrong there). Predicting a state of perfect natural happiness, but not heaven, for unbaptized infants makes sense in several ways. (Maintaining clearly a distinction of grace and achievement, filling in a hierarchy of salvation with an intermediate state, allowing merit for parents that get their children baptized, making the afterlife as varied as the current life, ... None of which are much appreciated in modern times, it has to be said.)

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If he cannot speak of more than a possible hope then what comfort is that to believing (or to any) parents.

This argument is completely meaningless to me. Truth is not determined by how much comfort it provides to us. And at any rate, hope for heaven is a better than assurance of limbo, and definitely a lot better than a guarantee of hell.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In the past year I've conducted 5 such funerals, including the twins, and I've been totally and 100% convinced of the love of God (more than ever before) towards those children and assured of the final resting place for them.

That's nice for you. But just because you are 100% convinced of something does not make it true.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I hope that's comforted their parents: any expression of doubt as to that fact amounts to abuse of vulnerable adults in my book.

Well, pastoral sensitivity is one thing, declaring dogma quite another. And you are implicitly doing the latter here. I do not believe that you have the authority to do so.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

@ Jade Constable

The Anglican baptismal liturgy opens with the line:

quote:
Faith is the gift of God to his people.

Faith, of the kind being discussed in the baptismal liturgy, (technically called "saving faith") is given by God to his people the Church. So no, faith is not a "Gucci work".

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
@ Jade Constable

The Anglican baptismal liturgy opens with the line:

quote:
Faith is the gift of God to his people.
Faith, of the kind being discussed in the baptismal liturgy, (technically called "saving faith") is given by God to his people the Church. So no, faith is not a "Gucci work".

"Gucci work"? English translation please? And yes, of course faith is the gift of God to His people - where did I deny that? I just believe in faith AND works, as did St James according to his epistle. Not believing in faith alone doesn't mean I don't believe in faith having a role in salvation!

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Gucci is a high end fashion house, faith isn't a high end work.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't think Jade Constable is suggesting any such thing, Daronmedway. Herein lies the binariness and dualism that seems to me to be inherent within Calvinism - however much one tries to refine it.

'He doesn't sign up to this or that, therefore he is arguing for salvation by works ...' Or somehow in some other way denying the 'crown rights' of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Or am I missing something?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I know what Gucci is and I know what works are, I just hadn't heard that particular phrase before, sorry. But yes, while faith is given to us by the Spirit, works/the desire to do works are too - and some Christians definitely use faith as a kind of works when they talk about getting (in the sense of taking) more faith as opposed to receiving more faith.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that great grandmama is treating baptism like a magic spell rather than the beginning of a life in the Church.
It seems that for many parents past and present, baptism served as a way of ensuring God's blessing upon a child. It didn't require an active form of religious observance on the part of either parents or child.

Baptism must be one of the most striking examples of where 'folk religion' differs significantly from orthodox Christian theology.
Given that the Book of Common Prayer Baptism rubrics say:

quote:
It is certain by God's Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.
it seems that 'folk religion' might have some official sanction

Ah! In my denomination I've never heard these words uttered!

However, you could say that even for adult baptism there's sometimes a similar belief that baptism effects its own transformation that's separate from what happens afterwards. In some denominations (perhaps those with distant revivalist ancestry?) there's an urgency to bring an individual to the point of baptism, but less attention is paid to how the person will be encouraged to follow the life of faith and service afterwards.

Re infant baptism, our assumption seems to be that in the past, everyone who presented their baby for baptism was going to be a faithful churchgoer, but this probably wasn't the case, was it? Did priests refuse baptism for the same reasons they do so today?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If God must do something, then it is not a grace, but an intrinsic necessity (e.g., God must indeed give humans a human soul, simply because otherwise they are not humans, and He would be creating merely another kind of ape). Salvation is not an intrinsic necessity for human beings.

No, but being salvific is an intrinsic necessity for God. To say otherwise is to say there is something contingent, in God's character. And on what could it possibly be contingent, if not God's character? That way madness lies. God's properties have to be intrinsic.

[ 11. December 2012, 13:22: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I think I'm picking up a thought from some on this thread -- let me try it out, does this sound accurate?

Baptism is an entry of the infant to the Christian community, of which the local church is a representative part.

If the church hierarchy thinks a child is being brought for a one time contact with the community of Christians, they do not see the act as a true baptism.

Now, if that is the thinking, seems to me when a baby is presented by other than parents, the question should be investigated -- in what ways will you, non-parent, be able to involve this child in the community of Christians? Why should we believe you can involve this child into Christian community?

But the word "community" might need to be broadened to allow alternatives to "Sunday mornings in this big anonymous congregation." A child being brought to a weekly house meeting Bible study is probably getting taught what Christianity is all about better than one taken to the church nursery and Sunday school to color pictures.

I think for many parents/grandparents there is a strong element of dedicating a child to God, but I can't imagine a church saying "we don't want this child dedicated to God" so I'm thinking the issue is whether the child can be expected to be in a community. In which case thinking "parents means yes, not parents means no" might be inaccurate thinking these days.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think Jade Constable is suggesting any such thing, Daronmedway. Herein lies the binariness and dualism that seems to me to be inherent within Calvinism - however much one tries to refine it.

'He doesn't sign up to this or that, therefore he is arguing for salvation by works ...' Or somehow in some other way denying the 'crown rights' of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Or am I missing something?

Yes, as usual you are missing something.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, but being salvific is an intrinsic necessity for God. To say otherwise is to say there is something contingent, in God's character. And on what could it possibly be contingent, if not God's character? That way madness lies. God's properties have to be intrinsic.

Close, but no cigar. Let's hear the Angelic Doctor:

quote:
Summa Theologiae Ia q9 a3:
I answer that, There are two ways in which a thing is said to be necessary, namely, absolutely, and by supposition. We judge a thing to be absolutely necessary from the relation of the terms, as when the predicate forms part of the definition of the subject: thus it is absolutely necessary that man is an animal. It is the same when the subject forms part of the notion of the predicate; thus it is absolutely necessary that a number must be odd or even. In this way it is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting. Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it, unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as, we will to take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to cross the sea. But we do not necessarily will things without which the end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to other means. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change.

Hence God really can be a giver of gifts. If God decides to bestow a gift, then He has decided to do so in eternity and hence there never was a part of Divine life where He had not so decided. Yet this does not mean that He could not have decided otherwise. For if He had decided to not bestow that gift, then also this decision would have been His eternally. His freedom of Will consists in this virtual possibility - God is eternally like this, but could eternally have been otherwise - even though this is ultimately alien to us because we experience shaping our life through acts of decision ordered in time.

Now, it simply is not the case that heaven, eternal life with God, is the natural end of every human being. It is true that this is the supernatural end of every human being, and as grace perfects rather than destroys nature, one can say that in grace human nature is kind of "extended" from its natural appetites to a desire for God. Yet this does require an infusion of grace. Aquinas in De Malo q5 a3 points to 1 Cor 2:9-11 concerning this: But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,"God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

So it by an actual revelation of the Spirit, an actual grace, that our own end is extended from the natural to the supernatural. So if God gives this grace to the infants (or zygotes...), then we can argue from God's love of these infants and their obvious inability to sin that they must attain heaven. Basically, God will be consistent in His actions and not give with one hand and take away with the other. However, we do not know whether God in fact does give this grace to all human beings. It is a gift and as we have seen, God can truly give gifts (i.e., He can also not give them). It could well be that God does not give this gift to all children who will die unbaptized, in which case they will seek natural human ends, and attain those perfectly and happily in Limbo. Is this the case? I do not know. Can this be the case? Best I can see, yes.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I totally don't follow. The "good" doctor seems to be saying that God can make choices, but they must be choices ordered to the end of his goodness. So if there are two ways to bring about goodness, he could choose between them. But there is no way he could choose not to bring about goodness. The salvation of man is good. Therefore God could not have chosen not to save man.

Which is what I said.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

You assume without reason that the good of God, as far as men are concerned, is simply identical with the good of man. It is however the express will of God that sinners be punished. He has explicitly revealed to us that this is a good that He in fact seeks, as "justice" part of His own goodness. Obviously punishment is not a good that the sinner seeks as his own good, so the good of God, as far as men are concerned, and the good of man are not identical due to sin. That is not in contradiction of God loving us, i.e., willing our good. For God indeed wills that none of us should sin, and hence that we realize our own good as fully as possible. However, if we do sin, against His will for us, then it is part of the good of God that we be punished for it. Again, this is not in contradiction to God being our Saviour, i.e., helping us to attain our greatest good, God Himself. For God wills that everybody be saved, and He has gone to great lengths to bring this about, and will forgive us our sins if we ask Him to. But God also wills that the unrepentant sinner cannot join Him in heaven, as "holiness" part of His goodness. So as far as unrepentant sinners are concerned, the good of man is very much not identical with the good of God, since clearly they will not attain their greatest good, but it is just this which is good to God.

In addition to all this there is a difference between our natural good, and out supernatural good, and that was what I was actually going on about. But your comment deals with more fundamental matters.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Can an unbaptized person be saved?

Yes, all if the person has faith in Jesus Christ as Lord... Just because someone is baptized, without faith, it does not save.
That raises the question "whose faith?" Stepping around the "infant baptism vs believers baptism" argument, if a adult's faith is substituting for or carrying the infant's faith, must it be the parent (or legal guardian) providing that faith? Or can another person who is very involved in the infant's care provide the faith? Like a grandparent? Or a long term nanny?

God has no grandchildren.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Baptism does confer sanctifying grace. Can God provide sanctifying grace apart from baptism? Yes. Has He done so? Yes. For example, we firmly believe that the heroes of the OT are now in heaven. Do we know that God will do so in any other individual case apart from baptism? No. So while we do not know that the unbaptised will go to hell, and in many cases have reasons to hope that they will rather go to heaven (innocent infants, faithful Jews, righteous non-Christians, ...), it would mean tempting the Lord if we slacked on baptising our own or bringing new converts to baptism.

One BIG Salvationist cry of 'Rubbish!' to that one!

[ 13. December 2012, 23:30: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

That's interesting and I mostly get it and agree, IngoB, but I'm not sure how it relates to the question of God's being able to make contingent choices.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]

Well, pastoral sensitivity is one thing, declaring dogma quite another. And you are implicitly doing the latter here. I do not believe that you have the authority to do so.

I'm happy that you believe that Ingo - but have you ever considered that you might be wrong?

I have no more right to stand by my beliefs and my understanding of God than you or any other human being. That said, my right to have and to hold those views is no less than anyone else, however those views may be obtained.

My experience of God and the resultant expression of that experience is not determined necessarily by what others have said, done or experienced - though I grant you, it will always be a help.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

1. I didn't claim that it was unique.

2. Yes, just hope. In the full meaning of the word, i.e., very much including the possibility that this hope will not be realized.

3. We do not deserve heaven. We cannot achieve heaven by keeping ourselves free from sin.

4. ..... babies then "circumvent" by virtue of dying early).

5. Rather we do not naturally possess sanctifying grace. This heirloom of the human race was lost by Adam. By nature we cannot live eternally in the presence of God, we do require grace for that, and no human effort can create such grace.

6. God of course can give sanctifying grace to every dying infant, if He so wishes. But the argument that He must be doing so is in the end a variant of universalism. And I do reject universalism. If God must do something, then it is not a grace, but an intrinsic necessity (e.g., God must indeed give humans a human soul, simply because otherwise they are not humans, and He would be creating merely another kind of ape).

7. Furthermore, there is no clear indication in either scripture or tradition that God will save all the infants. Re

8. Personally, I think the theological hypothesis of a limbo of infants (in its late iterations) remains as compelling as ever.

9. That's nice for you. But just because you are 100% convinced of something does not make it true.

10. .... pastoral sensitivity is one thing, declaring dogma quite another.
1. No - but ISTM that you did rather imply it.

2. In this context "hope" is specific to certainty - otherwise you are rather hedging your bets and sitting on the fence. Why avoid certainty when you belive it to be there?

3. Agreed - God's grace is needed

4. I don't think your choice of language here is really appropriate for the nature of the example we are using. There's no virtue in dying early - try living that as a bereaved parent.

5. I agree!

6. God doesn't have to do anything but by virtue and by nature of the circumstances and his love, he acts according to character. Love and judgement must stand together but so must justice .... hence anyone who is unbaptised but whoi has not - could not sin - would be saved. God's grace overrides even the imputed original sin of Adam.

7. I'm not so sure about either - calls to be baptised in scripture were addressed to all who could listen and understand and respond. That clearly precludes babies. In tradition the view that infants below the age of responsibility would be saved is as prevalent as the one that says they will be damned.

8. I can't see any justification for this at all and even you admit that Pope Benny hasn't engaged with it. As you say elsewhere in your response, being convinced by something doesn't make it true.

9. I agree - unless that conviction is based on one's understanding of God. Granted my convictions might be wrong but so may yours. I'm not alone.

10. Aren't they mutually interdependant? (See above in 8. and 9.) [/QB]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]One BIG Salvationist cry of 'Rubbish!' to that one!

Add a baptist shout of "stuff and nonesense!"

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. For me doing something to be something is more natural than the alternative, but I see doing something as an optional extra to being something if that makes any sense?

2. I don't see works as ways of gaining spiritual brownie points, but just more channels for God's grace to flow through.

1. Not really - I can't see how either scripture or mainstream tradition supports that one. How can you do what's apppropriate until you know what the basis or foundation for your actions really is? You run the risk, if you do before you be, or hitting the right target by accident as it were and run the risk of missing it altogether.

Not an optional extra but as James says, a natural progression and a personal desire to honour and serve the God who you know has saved you. Any other motive is impure.

2. True. But as long as those works are those which will point to God.

How will you know which works point to God unless you know God? How will you know God unless you have a relationship with him ("being")?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
One BIG Salvationist cry of 'Rubbish!' to that one!

Show your workings.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's interesting and I mostly get it and agree, IngoB, but I'm not sure how it relates to the question of God's being able to make contingent choices.

It doesn't, much, but then that's what I would say about your previous post, which it answered. God makes contingent choices in this sense: 1. God is eternal and unchanging. 2. There are things that God does (creates), which could have been otherwise, without this being in conflict with God's essence. 3. There are no external factors apart from God that in any way make God do what He does (creates what He creates).

The upshot is that while everything in God is essential, the world is not in God in that sense, but created by God apart from God. The world is not God, pantheism is false. Hence the world, rather than God, has potential to be otherwise. And not only so in the sense that every thing has potential to be otherwise (a piece of wood can burn to ash), but that the things as such could be otherwise (there might be no wood). Since however the world originates in God, this "projects" a kind of virtual possibility onto God. God could have been otherwise in the sense that a different universe could have been created by a God who in essence is the same as the God that is. So God would be eternal, unchanging, ominpotent, etc. but the world would, for example, contain no wood. The existence of wood in the world is not essential to God. None of this means that Genesis should be read literalistically (i.e., first God decided to do this, then God decided to do that, ...). But it does mean that Genesis provides a correct "human" analogy, God "decided" to make birds in the sense that birds could have not existed. (Even though, since God has "decided" to make birds, they do exist.)

By the way, here's an interesting thought: There is no way to make a "best of all possible worlds", contra Leipniz (and hence contra Voltaire's mockery). That's because the world and all its entities are finite, and an omnipotent being can always make better what is finite. It is like looking at x+1. If x is a natural number, then x+1 > x, i.e., x+1 is a greater number than x. There is no way to pick the "greatest of all possible numbers" as an actual number. Because we, in our mathematical "omnipotence", can always add one to any such number and make a bigger one. However, if x is infinite, then x+1=x. Adding one to infinity leaves it as infinity. In that sense perhaps then the goodness of God cannot be increased by creating a good world, in spite of the fact that good is being created, because the additional good is finite. But what I particularly want to get at is that it is impossible for God to create a "best of all possible worlds". In one way or the other, He had to create a world that is "good enough". Now, while we are bound to be ignorant and mistaken about the good of the world in many ways, I think we are not entirely wrong in declaring that this world "could have been better". This is a kind of "design problem of evil". But I think it is answered sufficiently by noting that this would be the case whatever God creates, and hence cannot be held against Him.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I have no more right to stand by my beliefs and my understanding of God than you or any other human being. That said, my right to have and to hold those views is no less than anyone else, however those views may be obtained.

I do not believe that that is true. Faith is neither a matter of taste nor egalitarian concerning its sources.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I don't think your choice of language here is really appropriate for the nature of the example we are using. There's no virtue in dying early - try living that as a bereaved parent.

First, I'm not engaged in pastoral care here, but in a theological discussion. Second, if we consider for a moment the unproblematic case of baptised infants that have died, then I think that it should be communicated to the grieving parents that their child is with absolute certainty now in heaven with God. People being people, I do not expect them to instantly leap with joy. But that would in fact be the rational answer to such glorious news; and the stronger the parents' faith, the more I would hope that this would soften the emotional blow.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
God's grace overrides even the imputed original sin of Adam.

Whether that is true for unbaptised children is a decision for God to make. And no, I do not believe that considering "God's character" answers this question. We can conclude merely that unbaptised infants do not deserve to be punished, since they have committed no actual sin, and hence that God won't punish them. But no human being, including unbaptised children, deserves to be with God in heaven. If we say that all human beings live eternally, then these two statements taken together basically establish the classical concept of limbo.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In tradition the view that infants below the age of responsibility would be saved is as prevalent as the one that says they will be damned.

Feel free to supply proof for that.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I can't see any justification for this at all and even you admit that Pope Benny hasn't engaged with it.

See above.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]

1. I do not believe that that is true. Faith is neither a matter of taste nor egalitarian concerning its sources.

2. First, I'm not engaged in pastoral care here, but in a theological discussion. Second, if we consider for a moment the unproblematic case ....

3. I do not believe that considering "God's character" answers this question.

4. Feel free to supply proof for that.

1. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe of course. But your belief is only of peripheral interest or concern to me in so far as it serves to confirm the basis for my understanding and experience of God.

2. Pastoral care and theology are not mutually exclusive. The latter informs the former if you are expressing your faith in everyday life.

I suggest, Ingo, you get a dose of real life as opposed to abstract theology. Then you wouldn't carry on talking about "unproblematic" cases of baptised children who have died.

It may be just that to you now but perhaps you can begin to imagine the pain that such a comment can cause to someone who has loved and lost a child, even after 30 years have passed.

3. I am happy that is what you believe. I disagree with that belief as God cannot act in contradiction to his character. To do so assumes that original sin has the greater power over and above the love of God.

4. Thank you. I do.

[ 14. December 2012, 17:38: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Pastoral care and theology are not mutually exclusive. The latter informs the former if you are expressing your faith in everyday life.

This is an interesting comment, that would however require some unpacking before I can meaningfully respond.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I suggest, Ingo, you get a dose of real life as opposed to abstract theology. Then you wouldn't carry on talking about "unproblematic" cases of baptised children who have died. It may be just that to you now but perhaps you can begin to imagine the pain that such a comment can cause to someone who has loved and lost a child, even after 30 years have passed.

I'm sorry if you have, and being a father myself I can at least imagine what that would be like. But I of course meant "unproblematic" strictly concerning the theological question where such a child would go for eternity, namely to heaven, not "unproblematic" to the parents or for that matter their pastor. Again, I apologize if this came over in the wrong way.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I disagree with that belief as God cannot act in contradiction to his character. To do so assumes that original sin has the greater power over and above the love of God.

No, God wouldn't be acting in contradiction to His character and there is no contest here between original sin and the love of God. And assertion cannot replace argument.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
One BIG Salvationist cry of 'Rubbish!' to that one!
Show your workings.

Is it worth it?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0