Thread: Baptism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026072
Posted by computergeek (# 17826) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
Look at the conversion accounts in Acts. It appears to me that all baptisms were of believers.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.

 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by computergeek (# 17826) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Is there a specific meaning to the NT Greek for "household"? (Realising this rather gets us into Kerygmania territory)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
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..
 
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Welcome to the ship cathscats!
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
The Salvation Army dry-cleans [Biased]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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"
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
My nephew's wife just had a baby. Just what is it the accuser has on the baby?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
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?"
 
Posted by computergeek (# 17826) on :
 
Thanks to all posters. Particular thanks to Baptisttrainfan for helpful info and guidance sent privately.

I understand much more about baptism.

I feel more reassured towards my infant baptism. I am also reassured that Believers' baptism would not be displeasing to God. How could it be?

Back to my primary question: would it be disobedient to God not to be baptised as a believer? I do not know the answer but will pray for God's will to be revealed to me.
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
Back to my primary question: would it be disobedient to God not to be baptised as a believer? I do not know the answer but will pray for God's will to be revealed to me.
To give my background, I grew up in a baptist church and chose to be baptised at the age of 15. So I come at this from a different angle to some here.

I would very tentatively say 'yes'. I say tentatively, because I don't want to sound condemning if you chose not to. Given the symbolism that baptism embodies, I just think it would be marvelous if you did choose to be baptised, as it's a very public statement. It's also a very brave thing to do, as I recall my knees quivering as I gave my testimony to around 300 people.

Whatever you choose to do, all the best.
[Smile]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is there a specific meaning to the NT Greek for "household"? (Realising this rather gets us into Kerygmania territory)
It's been a long time since I read it, but Joachim Jeremias' book "Infant Baptism in the first four centuries" is a good book to go to for a serious discussion on this.

As far as I recall, Jeremias came to the conclusion that the term "household" (oikos) was always assumed to include children and servants and that Paul and Luke could have under no circumstances used the word oikos, if they had wished to say that only adults had been baptised.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
Back to my primary question: would it be disobedient to God not to be baptised as a believer? I do not know the answer but will pray for God's will to be revealed to me.
"Disobedient to God"? I wouldn't want to say anything as strong as that. I am firmly of the "once baptised always baptised" persuasion, so I would say you are already baptised. But I recognise that you may well feel the need for some sort of public affirmation of your faith - and confirmation may not be appropriate or possible.

I would discuss this with your minister and see what they say. But I would certainly advise you to resist all pressures that may come at you from people who say "infant baptism is fake and only Believer's Baptism is the Real Thing".
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Maybe the question should not be around the word 'houshold' but the word 'baptism.'

We are using post-medieval Bible translations that are heavily influenced by church - and indeed government - authority. An example I would point to would by one of the pre-King James versions of the Bible that used the word 'congregation' to translate 'ekklesia'. The King James Bible whose authors wanted to stamp the authority of the established church onto the people used the word 'church' to justify its God-given authority in all matters.

Similarly the word 'baptism' is used to translate the word that should really by immersion or washing. Nowdays if I use the word baptism it has a uniquely Christian and liturgical meaning - I see in my mind a Christian initiation ceremony or sacrament that involves a baby dangling over a font, and held by a priests; or else it's a teenage in a tank of water with two elders from the church dunking him in the name of the trinity.

We automatically assume therefore that when Peter said on the day of Pentecost, 'repent and be baptised every one of you..' and when it says that the Philippian jailor was baptised, he and his whole household, that what was happening to them was a once and for all sacrament of Christian grace and initiation.

But if one replaces the word 'wash' for the Christian-ceremony implied 'baptise' then we get Peter telling the Jews and God-fearers at Pentecost that they must be immersed, be washed in the name of Jesus. In other words, he wasn't introducing to them a new sacrament of initiation ceremony, he was telling them to do what Jews do/did repeatedly - ritual washing for forgiveness and holiness but from now on in the name of Jesus.

It's the same when Jesus told the disciples to baptise in the name of the F S & HS. He was telling the disciples to practice Jewish rityual washings - that were by name repeatable - not while repeating the Shema, the name of YHWH, as was usual Jewish practice, but in the name of the Trinity.

It seems to me therefore that what the New Testament describes, pre AD70, is an entirely Jewish practice of ritual washing as per Rabbinic teaching but, post-Pentecost, performed in the name of Jesus and invoking the Holy Spirit.

As the Jewish foundations of the church were weakened by progression into Gentile Europe, by assimilating some of the ritual and mysticism of the Mystery Cults and then through deliberate anti-semitic design, the ritual of mikveh ritual washings was replaced by this once and for all means of grace that has ever since been the cause of so much argument, persecution and death.

The important thing is: did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Nonsense! What was established by Christ, and already practiced during the time of the Apostles, was a new practice which we see in the imagery St. Paul uses of being buried and rising again.
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Nonsense! What was established by Christ, and already practiced during the time of the Apostles, was a new practice which we see in the imagery St. Paul uses of being buried and rising again.
Established by Christ? What about the John the baptiser (or baptist, if you prefer)?

Are you suggesting that he began his ministry of baptism at Jesus' behest?

I would posit not. IMHO, Jesus took the practice of baptism (that of a ritual washing by full immersion) and added to it a symbolism. But that symbolism, of dying and resurrection, was not in place when Jesus himself was baptised by John.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
THIS might explain better than me.

quote:
A Jewish interpretation of the Mikvah is that of an experience of death and resurrection, and also to the re­entry into the womb and reemergence. Immersing fully, you are like a fetus in the womb, and when you come up our of the mikvah you are as reborn. The individual who has sinned and become impure is transformed; he dies and is resurrected and becomes a new creation. (Buxbaum, Jewish Spirtual Practices, p. 569)

 
Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :
 
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?
Yes it is, water baptism is for believers only.
(Acts 8:36-37, Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 10:44-48 etc)

What you believe is also important, Paul asked people "unto what were you baptised?" (Acts 19:1-6) ... they didn't understand about the need to receive the Holy Spirit, that's the mission of Jesus now. Not also that being baptised as a believer and receiving the Spirit are 2 separate things, just because you've been baptised as a believer does not mean you have received the Spirit.

Many people get baptised, believing in "Jesus" but it doesn't make any difference to them.

[ 17. September 2013, 11:05: Message edited by: NJA ]
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
Well, quite. We know that Baptism was a thing and not just the re-orienting of ritual washing because of John the Baptist. Who Baptised people, as opposed to advising them to wash themselves with different prayers.

[ETA: x-posted, agreeing with Ad Orientam]

[ 17. September 2013, 11:07: Message edited by: Gildas ]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Nonsense! What was established by Christ, and already practiced during the time of the Apostles, was a new practice which we see in the imagery St. Paul uses of being buried and rising again.
Established by Christ? What about the John the baptiser (or baptist, if you prefer)?

Are you suggesting that he began his ministry of baptism at Jesus' behest?

I would posit not. IMHO, Jesus took the practice of baptism (that of a ritual washing by full immersion) and added to it a symbolism. But that symbolism, of dying and resurrection, was not in place when Jesus himself was baptised by John.
All the sacraments are instituted by Christ, for when one is baptised it us Christ who baptises etc.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
That is reading back into the text what the church came to believe. There is nothing in the Bible that says that baptism was anything like the sacrament of Christian baptism.

If it were that important Jesus himself would have performed the ceremony!

You cannot use the word 'baptism' and expect the Jews in the Gospels and Acts to believe they were having a Christian sacrament - they were rituallty washing themselves in exactly the way they did again and again and again. But this time wit was in the name of Jesus.
 
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on :
 
In the midst of all this, I wonder what you would say about my route through baptism and beyond:

1) Being brought up in a Methodist family, I was given whatever rite is given to babies in the Methodist tradition

2) I became a member of the Methodist Church aged about 16

3) I went to a Baptist church (early adult) and was pressurised into adult baptism.

4) I then went to an Anglican church, and took the training course to be an Ecumenical lay minister. But because we had to choose a "hat" I chose to be Anglican as that is the tradition where I felt most comfortable. I therefore had to be confirmed. So I was.

In all of this, it was only the adult baptism that - although it was a powerful and meaningful experience - I feel wasn't quite "right" but I was pressured into going through with it! But I don't think God is going to hold any of it against me. I don't think I was "disobedient"; if anything, jst misguided but with the best of intentions - & God understands that!

I'm not sure my story adds anything to the debate, but I thought I'd throw it into the ring!
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
All the sacraments are instituted by Christ, for when one is baptised it us Christ who baptises etc.
That doesn't answer the question. Did John baptise people before Jesus "instituted" it or not?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
All the sacraments are instituted by Christ, for when one is baptised it us Christ who baptises etc.
That doesn't answer the question. Did John baptise people before Jesus "instituted" it or not?
I would say he was performing a mikveh, as were Jesus' disciples, and as Peter commanded on the day of Pentecost (with a different set of formulaic words).
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
As far as I recall, Jeremias came to the conclusion that the term "household" (oikos) was always assumed to include children and servants and that Paul and Luke could have under no circumstances used the word oikos, if they had wished to say that only adults had been baptised.
Interesting, but of course this was a culture that firmly believed in concepts of patriarchy and group authority. The head of a household had significant authority and power over the members of their household. IMO it was this that allowed children, servants and slaves to have baptism done to them rather than it having to be a result of their own individual decision to come to faith.

It is the same mentality that allowed a tribe or nation to be considered Christian just by the conversion of their King. This 'groupist' concept is entirely alien to our modern western mentality, and for us we have no concept of the household which operates in the same way.

I think therefore that for us, any attempt to replicate this previous culture by our use of infant baptism is flawed. Junior members of a household can be baptised without the need for their individual consent or faith no more than a businessman can do this to his employees. I believe that baptism for us today is only meaningful if it operates as a symbol and public commitment of our personal faith. Without that it is only a symbol of someone else's, and has no power over us.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
All the sacraments are instituted by Christ, for when one is baptised it us Christ who baptises etc.
That doesn't answer the question. Did John baptise people before Jesus "instituted" it or not?
John baptised with a Baptism of repentance. Baptism was part of the process in which a Gentile convert became a Jew and part of John's message of repentance was that, in a sense, Israel had ceased to be the people of God and needed to renew it's allegiance, as it were. The risen Christ mandated his disciples to perform a similar ceremony making disciples of all nations, baptising them "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Hence the practice of the overwhelming majority of Christians today.
 
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
Back to my primary question: would it be disobedient to God not to be baptised as a believer? I do not know the answer but will pray for God's will to be revealed to me.
"Disobedient to God"? I wouldn't want to say anything as strong as that. I am firmly of the "once baptised always baptised" persuasion, so I would say you are already baptised. But I recognise that you may well feel the need for some sort of public affirmation of your faith - and confirmation may not be appropriate or possible.

I would discuss this with your minister and see what they say. But I would certainly advise you to resist all pressures that may come at you from people who say "infant baptism is fake and only Believer's Baptism is the Real Thing".
This.

And it's interesting that Dormouse feels not quite right about having been "pressured into adult baptism." Dormouse was presumably already baptised as an infant in the Methodist church- "whatever rites are given to babies", in my experience of Methodism baptism was the rite.

If you decide to accept the solid and ancient tradition held in many branches of the Church that infant baptism is enough, I cannot imagine this decision could possibly be any sort of "disobedience to God."

As Oscar says, I recognise you may want some clear adult affirmation of your faith. If you do decide it should be adult baptism--especially if there isn't the possibility of any sort of confirmation or similar rite--then I don't think that would be "disobedience to God" either.

As this thread has made clear, there's divided belief among Christians on this. So perhaps we are free to do what feels right to us, or what we feel guided to do, or what the Spirit leads us to do....or what our current Christian community suggests...as long as the community feels like the right, God-guided place to be now...and is not pressuring you unduly, as happened to Dormouse.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
Back to my primary question: would it be disobedient to God not to be baptised as a believer? I do not know the answer but will pray for God's will to be revealed to me.
"Disobedient to God"? I wouldn't want to say anything as strong as that. I am firmly of the "once baptised always baptised" persuasion, so I would say you are already baptised. But I recognise that you may well feel the need for some sort of public affirmation of your faith - and confirmation may not be appropriate or possible.

I would discuss this with your minister and see what they say. But I would certainly advise you to resist all pressures that may come at you from people who say "infant baptism is fake and only Believer's Baptism is the Real Thing".
ditto that. Remember that the sacraments are all about noticing and celebrating God's grace, so anything that smacks of legalism and piling on guilt is missing the point.

Again, I'd rejoice in your infant baptism as a sign of God's gracious initiative in calling you to a life of grace. Then have a lovely, non-anxious conversation with your clergyperson re: the most appropriate way to celebrate and mark your response of faith within your particular faith community.

[ 17. September 2013, 14:09: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
I have a similar background to Dormouse, but with a different conclusion. Like Dormouse, though, I would not like to be dogmatic and insist that my way is "right".

My parents were Methodists and I was duly baptised ("christened" we called it back then) as a baby. After a brief spell of atheism I came to faith and was baptised by immersion as a teenager. Unlike Dormouse I did not feel pressurised into it - it was very much something I actively chose. Maybe this is one reason why we look at it differently.

I agree that being baptised as an infant and as an adult is not ideal. We did not have our children baptised as infants, but two of them have chosen to be baptised and the services were extremely meaningful for both them and the congregation.

JtW
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
All the sacraments are instituted by Christ, for when one is baptised it us Christ who baptises etc.
That doesn't answer the question. Did John baptise people before Jesus "instituted" it or not?
I'm not sure that the question is entirely relevant. The baptism of St. John the Baptist is not the same as Christ's baptism, that is, baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as Christ himself commanded his Apostles. I say "Christ's baptism" because he commanded it and because he baptises when we "baptise". The baptism of the Forerunner only prefigures the baptism we receive and as an example, that just a Christ submitted to the baptism of St. John so we too should submit to Christ's baptism.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
All the sacraments are instituted by Christ, for when one is baptised it us Christ who baptises etc.
That doesn't answer the question. Did John baptise people before Jesus "instituted" it or not?
Of course he did, but John's baptism wasn't a sacrament of the church. Jesus didn't create a whole new type of act; he took an act already known (indeed it was known before John) and infused it with special meaning and efficacy. You might as well ask if people ate bread and wine before Christ "instituted" the Eucharist.

That the two baptisms were distinct is shown in Acts 18:25.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
I want to link John's baptism more closely to the mikvah than to Christian baptism. Just as the temple priests would begin their service at the Temple with a mikvah, the ministry of Jesus is initiated with John's mikvah/baptism.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Someone asked what does the Bible mean when it refers to a "household."

Three words are usually found in the Bible where the family is indicated. These three are the Hebrew word bayith and the Greek words oikia and oikos. The unit of the national life of Israel, from the very beginning, was found in the family. In the old patriarchal days each family was complete within itself, the oldest living sire being the unquestioned head of the whole, possessed of almost arbitrary powers. The house and the household are practically synonymous. God had called Abraham "that he might command his children and household after him" (Gen 18:19). The Passover-lamb was to be eaten by the "household" (Ex 12:3). The "households" of the rebels in the camp of Israel shared their doom (Nu 16:31-33; Dt 11:6). David's household shares his humiliation (2 Sam 15:16); the children everywhere in the Old Testament are the bearers of the sins of the fathers. Human life is not a conglomerate of individuals; the family is its center and unit.

Nor is it different in the New Testament. The curse and the blessing of the apostles are to abide on a house, according to its attitude (Mt 10:13). A divided house falls (Mk 3:25). The household believes with the head thereof (Jn 4:53; Acts 16:15,34). Thus the households became the nuclei for the early life of the church, e.g. the house of Prisca and Aquila at Rome (Rom 16:5), of Stephanas (1 Cor 16:15), of Onesiphorus (2 Tim 1:16).

I note some people say that those in the household that were baptized where only those who were over 13. Frankly, I think that is arguing from silence. Both the Hebrew word and the Greek words would include everyone living within the house, including parents, children of all ages, and servants.

Remember when Jesus was receiving children and the disciples were trying to discourage the children from coming, Jesus castigated them, telling them to allow the little children to come to him and forbid them not for the kingdom belongs to such as them.

Parents bring their little children to Jesus even today through baptism. As someone pointed out, Baptism is a sacred act done by God which formally declares this person (regardless of age) belongs to God.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
The conversion of ‘me and all my household’ is discussed in Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes by E Randolph Richards and Brandon J O’Brien, who contrast the individualistic western culture that to most of us seems the norm with the collectivist cultures that are widespread in many parts of the world.
I quote from pp 103-105.
quote:
“In Western individualist cultures, the decision to become a Christian is a personal and individual decision... In collectivist societies, conversion is not strictly an individual decision, so it is often not an individual experience... group conversions – when whole families or tribes come to faith at once – are not uncommon.. this is simply how collectivist cultures work..People ‘do not make major decisions without talking it over with the proper authority figures in their extended family.’ (The author’s) Asian friend speaks of his conversion this way: ‘My father is wiser than I am. If he says Jesus is better, then I know Jesus is better.’ My friend has a faith as strong and as rooted as mine. His certitude about Jesus came in a different way than mine, but it is as firm. When the wise matriarch Lydia decided Paul’s god was best, her household was convinced as well (Acts 16:14-15)”
As for re-baptism – we were discussing this in groups at our local Anglican church, and in our group was my friend, a devout and traditional Anglican whose response was an emphatic ‘not on any account’, and the Vicar’s husband, who insisted that there was nothing wrong with it. We managed to shift the focus to another question before either had a heart attack.

GG
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Even in western culture the individualist ideology is a relatively recent phenomenon. Certainly when British kings were converted to Christianity, and subsequently when the churches of the British nations were reformed, it was expected and accepted by the vast majority of their subjects that they would follow suit.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
As a young Salvation Army officer I had to interview two other ministers about the sacraments. I interviewed the Dean of Londonderry Cathedral and a Presbyterian minister.

The Presbyterian bloke told me that in his tradition infant baptism should only be done for the child of believing, born again parents because their salvation covered the child until the age of accountability and the baptism was a sign of that grace that the child was in by virtue of the household faith.

The Dean told me that baptism was ex opere operato and that the child is born again by the gracious action of God. I still don't know about that personally; but then he said something rather beautiful that I have remembered ever since: He said that through baptism the child is born again and then, at confirmation, the older person 'becomes what s/he already is.'

I really like that. The person internalises, personalises, the grace that was effective in his/her life and, through the action of the Holy Spirit confirms the grace thatw as given.

From that viewpoint then, I would suggest that someone who was baptised/Christened as a baby and then lived a life with no real concept of faith in Christ but who is then converted or discovers faith, should not be rebaptised but should just confirm, that s/he has now become what they already are. Their baptism is a sign of the grace that has always been available but has now been consciously appreciated.

Does that make sense; does it help this discussion?
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
Jesus might have ministered long before the rise of Western individualism, but he did not obviously envisage automatic “whole family conversion” as the norm.

On the contrary, in Matthew 10:34-7 he seems to be warning that the gospel will rip families to pieces, rather than converting them en masse.

There is nothing wrong with children being baptized, and it is possible that the “households” in Acts included children, but whether they included babies totally unconscious of what was being done to them, is another question altogether.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Jesus might have ministered long before the rise of Western individualism, but he did not obviously envisage automatic “whole family conversion” as the norm.

On the contrary, in Matthew 10:34-7 he seems to be warning that the gospel will rip families to pieces, rather than converting them en masse.

There is nothing wrong with children being baptized, and it is possible that the “households” in Acts included children, but whether they included babies totally unconscious of what was being done to them, is another question altogether.
That's a very good point. The whole of Jesus' teaching and his dealing with people suggests strongly that each person must make an individual response. I find the comment that he made to the Pharisees is very telling: they claimed they were in the Kingdom by virtue of being descendants of Abraham; Jesus informed them that God could make children of Abraham out of stones! Belonging to a collective or household does not automatically ensure you are 'in'.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
As someone pointed out, Baptism is a sacred act done by God which formally declares this person (regardless of age) belongs to God.
I haven't ever believed in infant baptism but that's the best counter to my belief I've heard. That physical baptism is an act of God, originating from His grace, rather than an act of man, originating from one's faith, is a fascinatingly different way of looking at it.

I'm more arminian than calvinist in attitude I think but I do believe it's important to remember that we are not the authors of our own salvation. But I'm not sure if baptism specifically is best viewed as something we need to do, or something God needs to do for us. More thought needed I think.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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.
Yes, and what about those people who will continue to bring their children up in the Christian faith and Church? They haven't just disappeared off the radar, you know; nor are they likely to do so. YMMV -- too bad.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
[QUOTE]Yes, and what about those people who will continue to bring their children up in the Christian faith and Church? They haven't just disappeared off the radar, you know; nor are they likely to do so. YMMV -- too bad.
From what I can see it's even falling out of fashion with Christian families. I'm an evangelical and new to Anglicanism, but I haven't seen a single infant baptism yet, but lots of thanksgivings/dedications.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Once you're baptised you're baptised.

There is infant baptism - which is where the parents and godparents come in and hence (we hope) the child moves on to confirmation.

All adult baptism is ipso facto "believer's baptism" since the promises are made by the baptisee themselves...

As for infant baptism dying out, I'm mystified: we have plenty of baptisms and confirmations.

Yes, I've heard the "we'll let X decide for themselves when they're old enough" but, as a friend who went unbaptised until they were in their 50s remarks, it takes a brave adolescent to come forward for baptism, especially if all or most of their peers have been "done" as children.
 
Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :
 
I wonder why God made salvation so complicated?
 
Posted by computergeek (# 17826) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PDA:
I wonder why God made salvation so complicated?
I may be wrong, but I dont think that any branch of Christianity, except RCC and Orthodox, believes that baptism has anything to do with salvation.

But I may be wrong and await correction.
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PDA:
I wonder why God made salvation so complicated?
Did God, or did we?

L'organist - the other way to look at infant baptism is as an issue of theft. I've known several who were "baptised" as children and later in life have expressed resentment at their parents for robbing them of the opportunity to choose for themselves.

One I know won't tell his father (an anglican vicar) that he got baptised as an adult because he's too afraid of the reaction he'll get. That, based on the unmitigated condemnation he got for baptising his best friend, because anglicans seem to think their particular rules about who can and cannot administer sacraments ought to apply to everyone in every other denomination.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Let me say right up front, that "believers-only" baptism completely excludes people whose brain development is such that they never come to a point where they can understand the Christian faith. They are like permanent second-class citizens in a believers-baptism-only church.

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I disagree since none of the other examples of baptism say that someone was baptized without asking for it.
This is a strange mode of argument. "None of the examples that disagree with this example agree with it, therefore it is not an example."

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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!
"We are what we are" justifies being wrong about anything.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are using post-medieval Bible translations that are heavily influenced by church - and indeed government - authority.
We're not.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If it were that important Jesus himself would have performed the ceremony!
I would think this is hard to maintain given Paul's sorrow for having baptised anybody.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
From what I can see it's even falling out of fashion with Christian families. I'm an evangelical and new to Anglicanism, but I haven't seen a single infant baptism yet, but lots of thanksgivings/dedications.
Now THERE is an act without scriptural warrant -- "dedicating" an infant? Where's that in the NT?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My nephew's wife just had a baby. Just what is it the accuser has on the baby?
If the baby were Adam or Eve it would at some point rebel against God just as thy did. No question.
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Now THERE is an act without scriptural warrant -- "dedicating" an infant? Where's that in the NT?
Luke 2:22-40
 
Posted by computergeek (# 17826) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Now THERE is an act without scriptural warrant -- "dedicating" an infant? Where's that in the NT?
Luke 2:22-40
I think that's only for firstborn male children, verse 23, Exodus 13: 2, 12.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
quote:
Originally posted by PDA:
I wonder why God made salvation so complicated?
I may be wrong, but I dont think that any branch of Christianity, except RCC and Orthodox, believes that baptism has anything to do with salvation.

But I may be wrong and await correction.
And the Church of England:
quote:
As regards the effect of Baptism, it teaches that it is a death to sin and a new birth unto righteousness, and comprehends gifts that by nature we cannot have. In it we are regenerated and made members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.
which quotes the 1662 Baptism service and the catechism
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Now THERE is an act without scriptural warrant -- "dedicating" an infant? Where's that in the NT?
Luke 2:22-40
That's good for Jews. Now what about Christians?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let me say right up front, that "believers-only" baptism completely excludes people whose brain development is such that they never come to a point where they can understand the Christian faith. They are like permanent second-class citizens in a believers-baptism-only church.
Well I've baptised a number of people who have what some refer to as "learning difficulties"

I don't think your criticism holds much water as there are no second class citizens in any church, only the prejudices and opinions of some who make them so. IME baptism isn't one.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let me say right up front, that "believers-only" baptism completely excludes people whose brain development is such that they never come to a point where they can understand the Christian faith. They are like permanent second-class citizens in a believers-baptism-only church.
Well I've baptised a number of people who have what some refer to as "learning difficulties"
Were they able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to be baptised? If yes, then that's not who I was talking about. If no, then it wasn't a believer's baptism. Sorry, but this is NOT a counterexample to what I said.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
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?
At the relevent period, "household" included not just a mato and his wife, but their adult sons and their wives, any dependent uncles and aunts, and of course their children. More interesting, it also included all their slaves, from infants to graybeards. And teh custom -- not just with respect ot conversion to Christianity (inside the church, as it were) but to any religion other than the one in which that man was born -- was that the whole lot convert3d when the master did. Consent wasn't even asked, especially of the slaves.

In the case of the jailer who converted "with his household", the "household" ertainly included slaves (whose opinion was not asked about their baptism) and may even have included a number of the prisoners.

John
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
At the relevent period, "household" included not just a mato and his wife, but their adult sons and their wives, any dependent uncles and aunts, and of course their children. More interesting, it also included all their slaves, from infants to graybeards. And teh custom -- not just with respect ot conversion to Christianity (inside the church, as it were) but to any religion other than the one in which that man was born -- was that the whole lot convert3d when the master did. Consent wasn't even asked, especially of the slaves.
John
The lectionary reading from a couple of weeks ago was the book of Philemon. We don't know exactly when Philemon was converted but it is plain the Onesimus was converted after he ran off, not while he was living under Philemon's roof.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let me say right up front, that "believers-only" baptism completely excludes people whose brain development is such that they never come to a point where they can understand the Christian faith. They are like permanent second-class citizens in a believers-baptism-only church.

No they’re not.

I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Friends of ours had a son with hydrocephalus who died at the age of eight.

He was never baptized, and he didn’t partake of the elements in the Lord’s Supper either, though I dare say a tiny portion of the bread could have been liquefied in some fashion so as to be passed, along with the wine, down the tube through which he was fed.

He was greatly loved and supremely valued throughout his short life, and to suggest that he was treated as a “second-class citizen” is untrue, bizarre and offensive.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE] ... this is NOT a counterexample to what I said.
Ok ok don't shout please
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let me say right up front, that "believers-only" baptism completely excludes people whose brain development is such that they never come to a point where they can understand the Christian faith. They are like permanent second-class citizens in a believers-baptism-only church.
Well I've baptised a number of people who have what some refer to as "learning difficulties"

I don't think your criticism holds much water as there are no second class citizens in any church, only the prejudices and opinions of some who make them so. IME baptism isn't one.
I spent many years in a church that teaches believers baptism and baptismal cognizance - not only do you have to understand the Gospel but their specific view on the meaning and purpose and baptism (which for them is literally the forgiveness of sins in the waters). There was a young woman with Down's Syndrome and honestly no one really knew what the "right" thing was for her. Some people thought she was like a child so didn't need baptism, others felt that with time she could possibly understand.

So with that split in views, clearly the ones who thought cognizance was a possibility for her would have to by extension think her lack of baptism was problematic for her salvation.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
It seems to me that all of the above confirms the belief that the most important part is the presence of the Holy Spirit and simple faith (as in 'trusting' not simplistic or blind faith) in Jesus. The baptism is a lovely sign of salvation that comes by grave through faith and we have complicated it so much with so many pharisaical rules.

Such a shame.
Is this really what Jesus intended?
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let me say right up front, that "believers-only" baptism completely excludes people whose brain development is such that they never come to a point where they can understand the Christian faith. They are like permanent second-class citizens in a believers-baptism-only church.
I disagree. I think you define 'belief' with too high a bar, and seem to equate it with intellectual understanding, rather than a simple trust. Jesus said that our faith should be like the faith of children after all.

I don't think anyone, unless they are in a coma is incapable of belief in Jesus, and choosing to show that.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
not only do you have to understand the Gospel but their specific view on the meaning and purpose and baptism (which for them is literally the forgiveness of sins in the waters). There was a young woman with Down's Syndrome and honestly no one really knew what the "right" thing was for her. Some people thought she was like a child so didn't need baptism, others felt that with time she could possibly understand.
This is an example of the problem of setting the bar too high for baptism. Maybe an intellectual understanding of the theology behind baptism is helpful for those who can understand such concepts, but for a church to hold it as a barrier against those who cannot is a sin against God's grace IMO.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You cannot use the word 'baptism' and expect the Jews in the Gospels and Acts to believe they were having a Christian sacrament - they were rituallty washing themselves in exactly the way they did again and again and again. But this time it was in the name of Jesus.
I appreciate your comments. I have noticed that "baptism" seemed to be a concept the local people were quite familiar with long before Jesus mentioned it. We don't hear of anyone's puzzled "I should get what? Where do I buy it, say that peculiar word a few times so I'll remember and ask for the right thing - what, it's an action I should do? What sort of action? Get wet? Well, seems peculiar but if you say so."

Instead they seem to think it a perfectly normal idea. Don't some new converts raise the question "where shall I get baptized?" as if of course that's what you do after a spiritual turning!

Personally, I think baptism - like so many rituals and sacraments - is intended by God as a tool suggested to help us to express acknowledgment of that which is already real, not a legalistic requirement essential for creating that reality. Baptism is a way of us celebrating awareness of God's love and expressing intention to live in that awareness. The love and the aware intention are real whether or not the baptism event ever happens.

Baptist isn't a ticket into heaven no matter what you believe or do, nor is lacking it a ticket to hell. God just doesn't do that kind of "external behaviors are what matter" superficial legalism. Baptism is more like a celebration.

You are a year older on your birthday whether you throw a party for your friends to celebrate, or don't, but a party is fun. You have a new relationship with God when you believe, they celebrated with the culturally common method of celebrating a spiritual turning or recommitment - baptism.

Which is why the instructions about how where when are so imprecise and seemingly contradictory - it's not a precise and necessary act with such severe spiritual consequences it has to be labeled "valid" or "invalid" depending on exactly who or when or what words were spoken ("Jesus only" or "F, S & HG"). It's just suppose to be fun!
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[QUOTE]

Personally, I think baptism - like so many rituals and sacraments - is intended by God as a tool suggested to help us to express acknowledgment of that which is already real, not a legalistic requirement essential for creating that reality. Baptism is a way of us celebrating awareness of God's love and expressing intention to live in that awareness. The love and the aware intention are real whether or not the baptism event ever happens.

Baptist isn't a ticket into heaven no matter what you believe or do, nor is lacking it a ticket to hell. God just doesn't do that kind of "external behaviors are what matter" superficial legalism. Baptism is more like a celebration.

You are a year older on your birthday whether you throw a party for your friends to celebrate, or don't, but a party is fun. You have a new relationship with God when you believe, they celebrated with the culturally common method of celebrating a spiritual turning or recommitment - baptism.

Which is why the instructions about how where when are so imprecise and seemingly contradictory - it's not a precise and necessary act with such severe spiritual consequences it has to be labeled "valid" or "invalid" depending on exactly who or when or what words were spoken ("Jesus only" or "F, S & HG"). It's just suppose to be fun!
[Overused]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
When I was confirmed, my pastor--who was very conservative--was very critical of postponing baptism of children until they could decide for themselves. He would ask, what if the child died before the child was baptized (say in an accident), how would the minister be able to assure the grieving parents of the child being with God.

Lutheran churches see baptism as a means of grace in which the Word of God's grace is combined with the substance of water. It is a once and for all act that does not need to be repeated again. Fact is, some conservative pastors (such as the pastor I mentioned) would argue to be rebaptized is an act of disobedience in that one would be rejecting the effectiveness of the first baptism (that is why even I have problems with some Baptist churches rejecting the believers baptism of other Baptist churches)

It seems to me the question is how one is perceiving the act. If it is a sacrament--a sacred act in which God declares this person is mine, then the effectiveness of the act is complete. If one sees the act as a rite of obedience (ordinance) in which one is doing the act as a show of faith, then it is never really complete--since this side of eternity all human activity is flawed in some way.

Is baptism necessary for salvation? Not necessarily, in my book. Faith is necessary. Baptism helps to create faith in even the youngest child as I see it. But that faith has got to be continually nourished which is why parents and sponsors both promise to bring the child up in the church, to teach them the Bible and encourage them in the faith.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let me say right up front, that "believers-only" baptism completely excludes people whose brain development is such that they never come to a point where they can understand the Christian faith. They are like permanent second-class citizens in a believers-baptism-only church.
I disagree. I think you define 'belief' with too high a bar, and seem to equate it with intellectual understanding, rather than a simple trust. Jesus said that our faith should be like the faith of children after all.

I don't think anyone, unless they are in a coma is incapable of belief in Jesus, and choosing to show that.
I know a shipmate who used to work full time with adults some of whom had an mental capacity of a 6 month year old. I rather agree that they know God, but I don't think they have the chance of a snowball in hell of showing that.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0