|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Baptism
|
computergeek
Apprentice
# 17826
|
Posted
If one has been baptised as an infant, and later accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, is it an act of disobedience to God not to be baptised as a Believer?
Does infant baptism "do it"? Is infant baptism even "valid" and biblically sound?
I realise that there may be differing views on these questions but it would be a great help to me if folks could give me the biblical position.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
"the" biblical position? The paedobaptist's biblical position or the anabaptist biblical position?
There isn't one "biblical position", except the rather simplistic "in the proximity of water" bit.
Baptism - as the Church English Dictionary said - the means by which a candidate is introduced into a doctrinal dispute that will remain with him to the end of his days.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Look at the conversion accounts in Acts. It appears to me that all baptisms were of believers.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
If one has been baptised as an infant, and later accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, is it an act of disobedience to God not to be baptised as a Believer?
Does infant baptism "do it"? Is infant baptism even "valid" and biblically sound?
I realise that there may be differing views on these questions but it would be a great help to me if folks could give me the biblical position.
The Bible isn't as clear on this as we'd like - hence the huge range of baptismal doctrines across Christen.
Within Anglicanism - and increasingly popular in evangelical churches - there is a service for the Reaffirmation of Baptism that can be accompanied by an immersion, normally done for those baptized as infants but raised outside of the church of who had lost their faith and returned. But not rebaptism.
I had such a service and felt compelled to do so as I was baptized as an infant in a Protestant service but was raised in a Bible-beating evangelical church that I hated and never was baptized into as a member. When I came to Christ as an adult I felt like I needed to make a formal commitment, and my rector offered me reaffirmation and immersion. My conscience told me I needed to do it, so I did.
I have a few friends at church who were infant baptized, some have felt the need for a reaffirmation/immersion and some have not. I don't think it's necessary though and people should do as they feel is best for them in their walk with God.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
If one has been baptised as an infant, and later accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, is it an act of disobedience to God not to be baptised as a Believer?
Does infant baptism "do it"? Is infant baptism even "valid" and biblically sound?
I realise that there may be differing views on these questions but it would be a great help to me if folks could give me the biblical position.
If you embrace faith as an adult, it is logically appropriate to recognise that in some way as a testimony to others and as a recognition of what you have become. Baptism by immersion is the most biblically appropriate way.
There's nothing wrong, per se, with infant baptism as a recognition of intent. It doesn't "do" much theologically, in my view, beyond that except for others to promise that they will bring you to faith. The problem I have with it is when people try to say that paedo baptism is necessary to make you a member of the church as if you were outside and are now in.
The latest CofE service has an underlying theme of this baptismal regeneration - perhaps that's why more people are opting for the dedication which doesn't go along the regeneration route at all. Adult baptism by whatever means is a different matter as the promises are being made by the person, not for and on behalf of the person.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
If one has been baptised as an infant, and later accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, is it an act of disobedience to God not to be baptised as a Believer?
Does infant baptism "do it"? Is infant baptism even "valid" and biblically sound?
I realise that there may be differing views on these questions but it would be a great help to me if folks could give me the biblical position.
If you embrace faith as an adult, it is logically appropriate to recognise that in some way as a testimony to others and as a recognition of what you have become. Baptism by immersion is the most biblically appropriate way.
There's nothing wrong, per se, with infant baptism as a recognition of intent. It doesn't "do" much theologically, in my view, beyond others promising that they will bring you to faith. The problem I have with it is when people try to say that paedo baptism is necessary to make you a member of the church as if you were outside and are now in. Paedo baptism is devalued by the fact that many of the parents and godparents have little intention of sharing their faith - many haven't got any and it's just an excuse for a family party.
The latest CofE service has an underlying theme of this baptismal regeneration - perhaps that's why more people are opting for the dedication which doesn't go along the regeneration route at all. Adult baptism by whatever means is a different matter as the promises are being made by the person, not for and on behalf of the person.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
If one has been baptised as an infant, and later accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, is it an act of disobedience to God not to be baptised as a Believer?
No. It is, however, against the canons of most churches and the clear teachings of the early fathers, for any person to be baptized twice.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
If one has been baptised as an infant, and later accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, is it an act of disobedience to God not to be baptised as a Believer?
No. It is, however, against the canons of most churches and the clear teachings of the early fathers, for any person to be baptized twice.
It may be but where is it in the bible?
If you apply that particular lens we'd still be misogynist, homophobic and slave keepers ....
[ 16. September 2013, 16:32: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
If one has been baptised as an infant, and later accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, is it an act of disobedience to God not to be baptised as a Believer?
No. It is, however, against the canons of most churches and the clear teachings of the early fathers, for any person to be baptized twice.
It may be but where is it in the bible?
If you apply that particular lens we'd still be misogynist, homophobic and slave keepers ....
Almost nothing about the ordering of sacraments is in the Bible. We must rely on tradition, which clearly tells us that baptism is permanent and indelible,* and on reason, which tells us that once we have dies with Christ in baptism, we are unlikely to become zombies.
*See, e.g. Augustine
De Baptismo Contra Donatistas
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
If one has been baptised as an infant, and later accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, is it an act of disobedience to God not to be baptised as a Believer?
Does infant baptism "do it"? Is infant baptism even "valid" and biblically sound?
I realise that there may be differing views on these questions but it would be a great help to me if folks could give me the biblical position.
Who knows? Depends on how you read the relevant texts and what scholars you read. The Jewish antecedents of baptism required full immersion. All of the baptisms recorded in the NT are of believers. Nowhere does the NT suggest infants be baptized.
On the other hand...
The NT never describes the mechanics of baptism. Presumably, if it was important, one of the NT authors would have described the practice in detail. Furthermore, methods of baptism other than full immersion have been used for most of Christian history.
As to infant baptism, the NT mentions entire households being baptized. Does this mean only the adult believers in the household were baptized? Many NT scholars doubt it.
For me, scripture should be interpreted by tradition and reason. So, infant baptism is perfectly acceptable. Faith and baptism are both necessary. Those who come to faith as adults should be baptized. Those who are baptized as infants should come to faith. Order doesn't matter.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
If one has been baptised as an infant, and later accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, is it an act of disobedience to God not to be baptised as a Believer?
Does infant baptism "do it"? Is infant baptism even "valid" and biblically sound?
I realise that there may be differing views on these questions but it would be a great help to me if folks could give me the biblical position.
here's my middle-of the road pov:
There are several significant milestones in the faith journey of a believer. Each journey will be different, of course. But two in particular that we all share in one way or another and which the church historically has wanted to mark are:
1. the recognition that God chooses us before we choose Him. That our journey begins with a gift of grace we neither chose nor deserved (Rom. 5:8).
2. that the gift of grace calls for a response of faith. (which is not the end of the journey, but an important milestone)
In paedobaptist practice #1 is celebrated/marked by infant baptism and #2 is celebrated/ marked by confirmation.
In anabaptist practice #1 is celebrated/marked by infant dedication and #2 is celebrated/marked by believer baptism.
Being of a lower-on-the-candle sort, I'm good with either of these. All things being equal, I think there's something to be said for conforming to the norms of your particular community-- using the forms/ practices that your particular community affirms as worthy markers of these transitions.
So if you were baptized as an infant, I would say, rejoice and be glad in this symbol of God's gracious choosing. Then, assuming you are still part of a paedobaptist community, joyfully take part in confirmation or whatever is the marker of that public affirmation of faith in your tradition. If, for whatever reason, you are now part of an anabaptist community (as the wording of your question suggests) I would personally have no problem with being re-baptized as a sign of your response. I do think, however, it's important not to dismiss your infant baptism as "irrelevant" or even "disobedient" but recognize it for what it is-- the first step of your faith journey, one that always (regardless of how marked) begins with divine initiative.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
computergeek
Apprentice
# 17826
|
Posted
Your answer is very helpful, cliffdweller, thanks so much.
I was concerned about the prohibition against double baptism, but I realise that that is nota biblical prohibition where the first baptism was infant baptism.
Unfortunately I am currently in a church which practises both infant baptism and Believers' baptism. So, based on your analysis, it would seem that I should make my own choice after prayer.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that infant baptism was "disobedient". Obviously I had no conscious choice in the issue of being baptised as an infant. And I have no worries that it was in some way "wrong".
I really like your last paragraph. Nobody has explained it this way to me before.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
computergeek:
Prayer/ discernment is always a good place to start! You also might speak with your pastor and simply ask what is the appropriate way within your community to mark the first public proclamation of faith (your "yes" to the gift of grace) following an infant baptism.
[ 16. September 2013, 17:24: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am very glad that i was baptised as a teenager, against the wishes of my atheist parents.
However, I cannot deny the grace given to infants.
As our society becomes increasingly post-Christian, i suspect that infant baptisms will cease to be the norm and there will, therefore, be no need for this debate.
I don't know about that. There are a lot of RCs in the world.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The baptism of children within Christian families is entirely Biblical - it is recorded a number of times in Acts that entire households were baptised. Is anyone really suggesting that this didn't include the children?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As our society becomes increasingly post-Christian, I suspect that infant baptisms will cease to be the norm and there will, therefore, be no need for this debate.
Hasten the day! Infant baptism makes no sense at all in a post-Christian missionary context. It just creates confusion for everyone: churched, de-churched and unchurched alike.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The baptism of children within Christian families is entirely Biblical - it is recorded a number of times in Acts that entire households were baptised. Is anyone really suggesting that this didn't include the children?
I'd suggest that we don't really know. It would help if there were actual examples of a child being baptized, especially one too young to know what was going on.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
I was as a baby, baptised by my parents, and got much contact with church and also was given a Bible to read and taught in the church when I was told to do that by the man running it, aged 13, with 8 little children aged 5, there.
But I got personally baptised at university, as I really believed to do that individually. It felt really good when they baptised me. I then belonged to a baptist church.
My children were "Dedicated" in a Baptist church and aged about 14, they got themselves baptised.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As our society becomes increasingly post-Christian, I suspect that infant baptisms will cease to be the norm and there will, therefore, be no need for this debate.
Hasten the day! Infant baptism makes no sense at all in a post-Christian missionary context. It just creates confusion for everyone: churched, de-churched and unchurched alike.
You'd expect me to agree - and I do!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
I am currently in a church which practises both infant baptism and Believers' baptism. So, based on your analysis, it would seem that I should make my own choice after prayer.
My church is the same (URC/Baptist) and this has caused real difficulties, especially where someone "christened" there as a baby wishes to be "rebaptised". Not easy: I'll PM you.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Baptism is about what God does and God is faithful whether we are or not, so to me getting baptised again would be doubting God's faithfulness.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I hope that you will not succumb to the temptation to refer to those baptised as infants, and the churches that do that, as "not REAL Christians"
The intent in infant-baptism-then-confirmation or infant-dedication-then-baptism is the same.
I would like to think that God understands intention.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
If one has been baptised as an infant, and later accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, is it an act of disobedience to God not to be baptised as a Believer?
Does infant baptism "do it"? Is infant baptism even "valid" and biblically sound?
I realise that there may be differing views on these questions but it would be a great help to me if folks could give me the biblical position.
One can only be baptised once. A second "baptism" is really no baptism at all but rather a snub to the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'd suggest that we don't really know. It would help if there were actual examples of a child being baptized, especially one too young to know what was going on.
I'd suggest it would be stretching credulity that all of the households mentioned were devoid of young children.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QB]
There are several significant milestones in the faith journey of a believer. Each journey will be different, of course. But two in particular that we all share in one way or another and which the church historically has wanted to mark are:
1. the recognition that God chooses us before we choose Him. That our journey begins with a gift of grace we neither chose nor deserved (Rom. 5:8).
2. that the gift of grace calls for a response of faith. (which is not the end of the journey, but an important milestone)
In paedobaptist practice #1 is celebrated/marked by infant baptism and #2 is celebrated/ marked by confirmation.
/QB]
Sorry to be a nitpicker but that's not what confirmation is at all, even if that's what it's become in the West. Confirmation never was intended to be separated from baptism. Once we have been washed by the waters if baptism one us then anointed with oil, the seal of the Holy Spirit, which is confirmation. Only when one has received all the sacraments of Christian initiation (baptism, confirmation and holy communion) is one fully a member of the Church.
[ 16. September 2013, 19:31: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The baptism of children within Christian families is entirely Biblical - it is recorded a number of times in Acts that entire households were baptised. Is anyone really suggesting that this didn't include the children?
Yes - I am. Household refers to those considered adults - ie 13+ and able to speak for themselves.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[QUOTE]Only when one has received all the sacraments of Christian initiation (baptism, confirmation and holy communion) is one fully a member of the Church.
Er, no. Only when one has received Christ are you a member of the church. Everything else simply affirms or confirms that fact.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As our society becomes increasingly post-Christian, I suspect that infant baptisms will cease to be the norm and there will, therefore, be no need for this debate.
Hasten the day! Infant baptism makes no sense at all in a post-Christian missionary context. It just creates confusion for everyone: churched, de-churched and unchurched alike.
Agree - now there's a thing.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The baptism of children within Christian families is entirely Biblical - it is recorded a number of times in Acts that entire households were baptised. Is anyone really suggesting that this didn't include the children?
Yes - I am. Household refers to those considered adults - ie 13+ and able to speak for themselves.
Just as it did when Abraham circumcised all the males of his household.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'd suggest that we don't really know. It would help if there were actual examples of a child being baptized, especially one too young to know what was going on.
I'd suggest it would be stretching credulity that all of the households mentioned were devoid of young children.
I disagree since none of the other examples of baptism say that someone was baptized without asking for it.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
This is almost Dead (drowned) Horse territory. *almost*
I think, sadly, there are some people who are so wedded to their own view on this topic that they won't even contemplate the other position having any merit.
For me? I was baptised as a baby then confirmed as a teenager into the CofE. My wife was dedicated as a baby then baptised as a believer as a teenager into a Baptist Church. Both "valid", neither "irregular" in my view.
We're now at a MOTR to liberal catholic CofE shack where the norm is baptism of babies (normally of babies whose parents we've never seen before and never see again), but we're choosing to have our son dedicated rather than baptised. So, we might have some conversations with other parishioners asking why we're doing that, but we both love a good debate!
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The baptism of children within Christian families is entirely Biblical - it is recorded a number of times in Acts that entire households were baptised. Is anyone really suggesting that this didn't include the children?
Yes - I am. Household refers to those considered adults - ie 13+ and able to speak for themselves.
Just as it did when Abraham circumcised all the males of his household.
This is not the law but grace and it's not the OT.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QB]
There are several significant milestones in the faith journey of a believer. Each journey will be different, of course. But two in particular that we all share in one way or another and which the church historically has wanted to mark are:
1. the recognition that God chooses us before we choose Him. That our journey begins with a gift of grace we neither chose nor deserved (Rom. 5:8).
2. that the gift of grace calls for a response of faith. (which is not the end of the journey, but an important milestone)
In paedobaptist practice #1 is celebrated/marked by infant baptism and #2 is celebrated/ marked by confirmation.
/QB]
Sorry to be a nitpicker but that's not what confirmation is at all, even if that's what it's become in the West. Confirmation never was intended to be separated from baptism. Once we have been washed by the waters if baptism one us then anointed with oil, the seal of the Holy Spirit, which is confirmation. Only when one has received all the sacraments of Christian initiation (baptism, confirmation and holy communion) is one fully a member of the Church.
Sorry, I was speaking from a Protestant (specifically Reformed) pov. Should have specified that.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The baptism of children within Christian families is entirely Biblical - it is recorded a number of times in Acts that entire households were baptised. Is anyone really suggesting that this didn't include the children?
I'd suggest that we don't really know. It would help if there were actual examples of a child being baptized, especially one too young to know what was going on.
I'm guessing a discussion of the biblical warrant for infant baptism be a bit of a dead horse. At any event, I suspect it's a bit off-topic for what computergeek is really asking.
[ 16. September 2013, 21:29: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sorry, I was speaking from a Protestant (specifically Reformed) pov. Should have specified that.
And, needless to say, Ad Orientem was speaking from a specifically Orthodox position. I can't think of another part of the Church which holds that you aren't a full member until you have been baptised, confirmed and received communion. Someone will now come along and tell me which other parts of the Church also believe that..
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cathscats
Shipmate
# 17827
|
Posted
Another distinction, for me the real one, though maybe not for others, is between the idea of baptism as sacrament or as ordinance.
I was brought up in a baptist church and was baptised as a teenager as the correct response of my faith. That was how I had learned to understand baptism, in a church that doesn't officially believe in sacraments, but ordinances - something Jesus told us to do.
Only problem was that in the act of being baptised I experienced it very much as having little to do with me and everything to do with God at work. In other words a sacrament, or an outward and visible means of grace.
So I had my own children baptised as infants, and I happily baptise people of all ages and stages in their faith journey.
It's God's gift!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"...damp hands and theological doubts - the two always seem to go together..." (O. Douglas, "The Setons")
Posts: 176 | From: Central Highlands | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
As a teenager, I faced the same questions that are in the OP.
The Baptist Church I was part of encouraged me to consider the question seriously, but also held that it was a matter for my own conscience. I prayed hard about it and read all that I could find on it.
In the end, I came to the conclusion that the NT was not unequivocally clear that believer's baptism was the only right way; I knew that my parents had had me baptised in good Christian faith, and had done their best together with the Church congregation of which we had been part to enable me to grow into Christian faith.
Accordingly it seemed right to me to witness to that fellowship and to my parents that God had honoured their faithfulness, and to receive the right hand of fellowship there.
Subsequently I read Gordon Kuhrt's book Believing in Baptism which I found gave further biblical and theological foundation to the decision I had come to. (Kuhrt's father was a Baptist minister, so Kuhrt had really had to wrestle with the issues himself.)
As a parent now it is important to me that our children were baptised as a sign of God's gracious love to them and that God's "promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him." They are brought into the household of faith by baptism and raised to regard themselves as children of a loving heavenly Father.
While the roots of confirmation lie in the historical issue of bishops being unavailable to baptise, it is nonetheless a rite in which the person receiving confirmation is expected to declare their own faith for themselves, and thus is an important milestone in a person's journey of faith as they come to own for themselves that which they have so far received from the hands of those who care for them.
Personally I feel that denominations which do baptise infants have got themselves into a difficult situation over a period of decades (if not centuries) where children have been baptised in the absence of any evidence of commitment on behalf of the parents (apart from the request itself), and the Church of England's own diversity of mind about the meaning and practice of baptism is a reflection of similar diversity in the Church at large.
I would be glad to see baptism as a mainly social and cultural naming ceremony and baby celebration wither on the vine, and for it to become again something which is really only wanted by those whose commitment to faith finds expression in some more or less regular participation in the life of the visible Church, and is genuinely reflected in an effort to enable their children to grow up in faith.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The baptism of children within Christian families is entirely Biblical - it is recorded a number of times in Acts that entire households were baptised. Is anyone really suggesting that this didn't include the children?
I'd suggest that we don't really know. It would help if there were actual examples of a child being baptized, especially one too young to know what was going on.
I'm guessing a discussion of the biblical warrant for infant baptism be a bit of a dead horse. At any event, I suspect it's a bit off-topic for what computergeek is really asking.
Not from his opening post it isn't. At least, it doesn't appear that way to me, anyway.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The Salvation Army dry-cleans ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sorry, I was speaking from a Protestant (specifically Reformed) pov. Should have specified that.
And, needless to say, Ad Orientem was speaking from a specifically Orthodox position. I can't think of another part of the Church which holds that you aren't a full member until you have been baptised, confirmed and received communion. Someone will now come along and tell me which other parts of the Church also believe that..
Roman Catholics? (Even if they do have the order arse over tit, thanks to that archreformer Pius X)
[ 17. September 2013, 01:14: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Do whatever you personally feel God would like you to do, and if unsure about that do whatever the church you currently attend believes proper.
Some churches believe infant baptism is invalid (i.e, you weren't *really* baptized) and will strongly want you to be baptized by personal choice. Others insist infant baptism is valid and you should not be baptized again. Some don't accept any baptism by other churches. A few believe rebaptism is valid (even if not required) any time you have a major re-commitment after some years of disinterest in God even if that means several times in your adult life.
Don't try to take the baptism theology of one church to a different church or you will go crazy.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Comments have been made that the only baptisms mentioned in the NT were believer baptisms.
Well, not really. Take another look at some of the passages in Acts
Acts 2:38-39 ~ "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.'"
Acts 16:14-15 ~ "One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.' And she prevailed upon us."
Acts 16:29-34 ~ "The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' They replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved -- you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God —- he and his whole family."
And there is this passage from 1 Corinthians
I Corinthians 1:14-16 ~ "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel -- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."
(Emphasis added.)
Supporters of infant baptism note that in the Acts 2 passage, "the promise is for you and your children..." in contradistinction to the adults present at Peter's address. The households of Lydia and the Philippian jailer were baptized. At issue is whether these households included children, and if those children were able to make a credible profession.
While western culture emphasizes individual salvation, supporters of infant baptism observe that God has expanded the extension of grace beyond individuals to families and households.
As has been noted those who believe in the Sacramental Nature of Baptism believe it is a once and for all act. There is no need to be re-baptized. However, we are called on to reaffirm our baptisms daily, but there are rituals were one can re affirm their baptism before the congregation.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
On the topic of multiple baptisms, isn't that pretty cut and dried for any church (and I realise not all do) that subscribe to the Nicene Creed? "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins"
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
My nephew's wife just had a baby. Just what is it the accuser has on the baby?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My nephew's wife just had a baby. Just what is it the accuser has on the baby?
Original sin?
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Do whatever you personally feel God would like you to do, and if unsure about that do whatever the church you currently attend believes proper.
Some churches believe infant baptism is invalid (i.e, you weren't *really* baptized) and will strongly want you to be baptized by personal choice. Others insist infant baptism is valid and you should not be baptized again. Some don't accept any baptism by other churches. A few believe rebaptism is valid (even if not required) any time you have a major re-commitment after some years of disinterest in God even if that means several times in your adult life.
Don't try to take the baptism theology of one church to a different church or you will go crazy.
It must surely be the elephant in the Church room that the issue of eucharist and baptism causes so much disunity. I am aware that Rome would say, "Well if everyone went back to pre-Reformation times we wouldn't have this problem - it's the fault of you pesky Protestants!" But we are where we are!
It is a shame though and it's basically the issue that finally made the Founder of The Salvation Army to stop having sacraments! For one year, in 1882, we were talking to Canterbury about a merger. Yes, The Salvation Army nearly became an Anglican order! Anyway, whole Salvation Army congregations were traipsing off to the Parish Church on Sundays in this year of experimentation. It worked fine in some places but then some of the Vicars began saying that out of the Salvationists present in Church, only those who had been baptised and confirmed prior to joining the Army could receive the sacrament - the others could just go to the Methodists down the road. Booth, himself a baptised Anglican but Methodist by ordination, was incensed and the talks with the Archbishops ceased and he declared "We are being divided at the church door!" The Army's position therefore became, in not so many words, 'let them get on with it, "We're not ourselves a 'church' so the sacraments are not binding on us, we'll mind our business, let them mind theirs." The practice of baprism and communion was stopped immediately.
The issue of whether we are a church still surfaces every now and then even today - but our official position is now that we are are.
Anyway, for us there is one important principle and it's the one thing that unites the whole church in the question of the sacraments - grace.
We etach that grace is freely available to all people and at all times and in all places. It is the grace that unites us - and the sacraments are the outward means but are not the only conveyors of grace.
Baptism for example, we believe, is not 'within' the water. According to the New testament there is 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism'.
We also learn that 'we were all baptised by the one Spirit into the one body.'
Is that not the 'one baptism'? Is not the baptism with the Spirit, that inward 'Pentecost' not the inting baptism? 'Is Christ within you the hope of glory' not the mystery (sacramentum) of faith and that therefore he and his presence in life is the one true sacrament?
If the Church could unite around the Holy Spirit's baptism and then see the mode of sacramentaliseing it as a denominational 'emphasis, preference, conviction' that is as valid as the next church's practice, then we would have unity.
We can not have eucharistic and baptismal unity if we insist that mine is more valid than yours but we can be entirely at one if we believe that the Spirit baptises us with himself and that Christ is our true sacrament - regardless of how we demonstrate it in liturgy and practice.
Just a thought.
[ 17. September 2013, 06:52: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It is, however, against the canons of most churches and the clear teachings of the early fathers, for any person to be baptized twice.
Cyprian rebaptised Novatianists, a fact which was later used by the Donatists against Augustine's 'ex opere operato' approach.
My favourite discourse on baptism occurs in Edmund Gosse's Father And Son.
When his strict Brethren widower father announced that he intended to remarry, the eleven year-old Edmund disconcerted him by asking of his intended:"Has she taken up her cross in baptism?".
His father replied shame-facedly; "You see, she has been brought up, hitherto, in the so-called Church of England".
"Papa",I said,"don't tell me she's a pedobaptist?"
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
