|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anglican Anabaptism
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Include me out of the paedobaptist consensus, then.
Everything you say in that post sounds perfectly reasonable.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Yes, but (and this is my other problem with much on this thread), the OP isn't about RC-anglican dialogue, it's about a couple deciding that they don't want to play the "who gets the baby?" game. (
No it wasn't. It was about what an appropriate pastoral response to this situation is. The problem seems to me, Melon, old fruit, is that in the over 20% of the posts on this thread that are down to you, you have decided that the OP was about turf wars and an opportunity for you to pick the scab on your own wounds.
I have nothing but the deepest respect for those, who like you, hold only with the baptism of those whom they judge capable of giving proper intellectual assent to a certain faith position. They are consistent in their theology and are more often than not much better examples of Christian charity in their lives than me.
What the post was about, was how I should respond to a situation which puts me and my wife in a difficult situation. It is difficult because I live in the house attached to the Church, because I was involved in the baptismal preparation, because I know that the father knows that what has happened is (by his lights and mine) wrong - a fact attested to by the look on his face at the Anglican ceremony, because I am the Chair of our local ecumenical group and have to preach this weekend at our Octave of CU service, because Mrs T works for the Anglican Vicar (don't worry Callan, I saw the register open on the Vicar's desk when I took over Mrs T's post yesterday afternoon), because I am a part of the pastoral team in the parish and I don't know what to say or how to deal with the likely reaction of our PP (who I know very well).
What I don't want is a row at the heart of the marriage of the parents. What I don't want is a tug of war over the child's faith. What I don't want is an unpleasant atmosphere invading our local ecumenical relations and what I don't want is to sour my wife's relationship with her employer.
Your assumption that the parents are involved in some kind of two-person ecumenical paradigm shift is purely conjecture and a result, I would suggest, of your projecting some kind of "wish as father of thought" interpretation on to the scenario. What I suspect is the much more likely reason - and I'll know by this evening - is that the Vicar and the wife cooked this up and then put pressure on the husband to acquiesce. In which case my problems as outlined in the OP and earlier in this post remain.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
The paedobaptist consensus on this thread seems to be that what the parents did is wrong because it queers the pitch for ecumenical dialogue based on syntactic agreement about "one baptism" (and maybe because that puts the couple and their child in a confused position wrt the churches engaged in that dialogue).
I don't think that there is a consensus. The parents, not having an ecclesiological locus nor, apparently, theological insight (the latter is not meant pejoratively - there are none so theologically blind as those claiming theological insight), just wanted to cover both bases for their child and honour each other's church tradition. A loving, if untutored, imperative.
Evangelical anglicans will count among their number sacramental paedo-baptists and (my position and I guess the majority) covenant paedo-baptists. If they don't think that either position is valid, then why are they anglicans?
Now that we've had confirmation that the second service was a baptism, my gripe has nothing to do with the mode or theology of baptism, but that the anglican minister treated so cavalierly what is a sacrament to other folk, including a sizeable chunk of his own church. On the face of it, he also passed up the opportunity to spend time with the family discussing the significance of baptism. And he caused gratuitous offence to his Roman colleague (in this situation, the theological or at least ecclesiological 'weaker brother').
(It's nothing to do with ecumenism, which is a chimera anyway. If ever there was an onomatopoeic word, it's ARCIC.)
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
don't worry Callan, I saw the register open on the Vicar's desk when I took over Mrs T's post yesterday afternoon
Masterfully done, Holmes ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The problem seems to me, Melon, old fruit, is that in the over 20% of the posts on this thread that are down to you, you have decided that the OP was about turf wars and an opportunity for you to pick the scab on your own wounds.
I don't think I have a lot of wounds on this subject to pick over. I haven't been rebaptised, and in the sort of interdenominationalism that I see most of the time the consensus is anabaptist anyway.
I don't think that I've ever suggested that the OP is about turf wars per se - it sounds like the churches involved are on good terms, which is great. My suggestion was and is that the "one baptism" thing that makes the actions described in the OP a problem is a remnant of the days when paedobaptists literally ruled the Earth and turf wars were fought with armies, that its biblical support is dubious (regardless of which side of the anabaptist fence you sit), and that if churches were less hung up about "one baptism" it might make things a lot simpler. I'm sure most paedobaptist ministers are lovely, generous people who want to do right by those they pastor. My question is whether they do this in spite of a theological position that was designed for a very different situation to our own.
I still can't see many options for reading your "one baptismal dignity" sentence.
Why do you think the parents wanted two baptisms? It must be their idea, and getting the same baptismal party to both services suggests that they invested quite a lot in making it happen. I can't think of an explanation that doesn't involve some variant of keeping ecclesial options open for them and/or the child.
Glad you appear to be feeling better, btw ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
[ETA: If the double baptism was the initiative of the vicar, which is not an idea I had seriously considered, add my vote to the "idiot vicar who needs a good slapping" pile.]
[ 18. January 2007, 13:45: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Melon, I would have thought that even from a believer's baptism perspective there might be issues if someone as, say, a teenager was baptised on profession of faith in their local Baptist Church, and then subsequently after drifting away from faith came back to a nearby independent church, say, and were baptised again on profession of faith.
ETA even more so if they did it in two chronologically close ceremonies one at the Baptist church because it was , e.g., their parents church and then in the independent church because it was where they worshipped themselves
[ 18. January 2007, 15:03: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
If it happened because NFI didn't believe the local baptist church was sound enough, I can well imagine the baptists being miffed, but I think they would be no more miffed about the baptism than about the implied unsoundness, ie it would be about as bad as a baptist moving to NFI because "they are open to the Spirit and you are not". If NFI was rebaptising baptists because only those in NFI are true believers, that would be upsetting, but it would be upsetting because of the claim to hold a monopoly on salvation, not because of the baptism itself.
My wife was baptised for the third time (following two infant baptisms) in a methodist church, with the full knowledge of the circuit, by a methodist minister. I wasn't really aware of the wider politics involved.
IME, best practice is for the pastor of the receiving church to have a chat with the pastor of the releasing church to check that the person in question isn't running away from some particular issue. Generally, the releasing pastor would be a bit sad that his congregation hadn't been able to meet the person's needs, but would prefer them to be somewhere than nowhere.
[ETA: I can't imagine believer's rebaptism happening for the reason you suggest in your ETA. It is quite possible to be a member of more than one congregation, because membership is a local church thing and is not contemporaneous with baptism. Dual membership happens when it makes sense, eg for some students and some missionaries.]
[ 18. January 2007, 15:15: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
[I can see how you come to that conclusion, but, with respect, I think you are still reading paedobaptist thinking into what you see of anabaptist practice.
I would be unlikely to do that as I disagree with infant baptism and did not have my own daughter baptised.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I would be unlikely to do that as I disagree with infant baptism and did not have my own daughter baptised.
Ok, fair enough, but I still think that your reading of the Southern Baptists is inaccurate.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
Evangelical anglicans will count among their number sacramental paedo-baptists and (my position and I guess the majority) covenant paedo-baptists. If they don't think that either position is valid, then why are they anglicans?
Maybe you or someone else explained this higher up the thread, FD, but for the benefit of thickies like myself could you say what you mean by 'covenant paedo-baptists'?
quote:
Now that we've had confirmation that the second service was a baptism, my gripe has nothing to do with the mode or theology of baptism, but that the anglican minister treated so cavalierly what is a sacrament to other folk, including a sizeable chunk of his own church.
I suppose, apart from the vicar himself, only Trisagion who presumably knows him reasonably well, can attempt to expain his motives. On the face of it it seems like crass discourtesy masquerading as an attempt to be 'nice' . As there at least seems to be some attempt at ecumenical co-operation in that place, I fail to understand why he could not have approached the RC priest well in advance to discuss a strategy. It's not as if he regards RCs as less than Christians as he is reported as affirming the Catholic baptism before performing his own redundant ceremony.
Incidentally, FD, the 'sizeable chunk' of the C of E who believe baptism to be a sacrament must be 100%... unless they are disloyal to the 39 Articles. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I would be unlikely to do that as I disagree with infant baptism and did not have my own daughter baptised.
Ok, fair enough, but I still think that your reading of the Southern Baptists is inaccurate.
As one married to a Southern Baptist here in the U.S. I would say that his reading is extremely accurate.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I was under the impression nowadays that you didn't have to be loyal to the 39 Arts to be an Anglican - at least that's the impression I've gained on these boards.
Re covenant paedo-baptism, I think this concept comes from the Calvinist end of the spectrum and is common amongst Presbyterians and those Anglicans who are...er...loyal to the more Calvinist of the 39 Arts. As I understand it, for those holding this view, infant baptism is a sign or ratification of the infant's election to salvation under the New Covenant by virtue of their being born to a Christian family, in the same way that circumcision was a sign of election (of the Jews) under the Old Covenant.
Where's Numps when you need him - he's very good at explaining this sort of thing. Come to think of it, where is Numps?
[cp with JSwift]
[ 18. January 2007, 15:45: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JSwift:
As one married to a Southern Baptist here in the U.S. I would say that his reading is extremely accurate.
Any chance of a link to a Southern Baptist statement of faith that supports this? I can quite believe that there are nominal southern baptists who believe all sorts of things, but then I have questionnaire data suggesting that 25% of those who self-identify as catholics in France believe in reincarnation, which is not to say that the pope agrees with them.
[ETA: This is about as definitive as you get for Southern Baptists, and it seems to me to say exactly what I said it would say, with symbolic sacraments, no mention of the necessity of baptism for salvation, and church membership being a local church issue.]
[ 18. January 2007, 15:52: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Melon, I've just looked back, and I can't see where ken specifically named Southern Baptists, or claimed that any wider church organisation such as the SBC had a formal policy of the sort you're asking to say. Ken spoke of the practice of individual US baptist churches, and I've no reason to think he's wrong.
Similarly, I don't see many people self-identifying as 'paedobaptists', or anyone claiming that baptism by baptist churches is invalid, or that ecumenism can only proceed on the basis of a wholly shared understanding of baptism.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The SBC Faith and Message 2000 to which Melon has linked is indeed definitive and makes no mention of baptism being in any way salvific; likewise neither do the earlier SBC Faith and Message SoFs of 1925 and 1963 (indeed the main reason for the F&M 2000 revision was the insertion of a No Wimmin clause following the Paige Patterson-led conservative take-over of the SBC in the 1980s). You have to go back to 1689 and the London Baptist Confession to find even a vague link between baptism and salvation as a Baptist belief, and then only as a 'sign':-
quote:
29. Baptism
1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person who is baptised - a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
2. Those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects for this ordinance.
3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, in which the person is to be baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
4. Immersion - the dipping of the person in water - is necessary for the due administration of this ordinance.
The only 'baptists' I've come across who link baptism to salvation are the Church of Christ/ Campbellites, who IIRC believe in a form of baptismal regeneration, but they aren't regarded as baptists by any other baptists and arguably by definition cannot be baptists (although they arose from within the baptist 'family of churches' and hence are often mistakenly associated with baptists)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Melon, I've just looked back, and I can't see where ken specifically named Southern Baptists, or claimed that any wider church organisation such as the SBC had a formal policy of the sort you're asking to say. Ken spoke of the practice of individual US baptist churches, and I've no reason to think he's wrong.
He said "millions of them", which, even in America, cuts down the number of baptist groups that could fit the description. If we are talking about thousands of little baptist groups holding this position, it really ought to be trivial to find a couple of dozen websites with a baptismal regeneration statement of faith, as baptists are nothing if not up-front about their doctrines. Unless/until that happens, I have no reason to believe that Ken is right.
The SBC site confirms Ken's comments about baptism and membership, but also shows that membership refers to the local church, not the church universal, and that to my knowledge is true of every baptist church in the world. The only anabaptist group in recent history that I know of which believed in baptismal regeneration is the Church of Christ, also mentioned by Matt Black, and my understanding was that they no longer hold that position.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Trisagion
Your latest post is very clear and your opinion about the state of mind of the father seems very likely to be true. I still reckon you should concentrate on the pastoral responsibilities to him first of all, from which you may get some more hard information about the wider issues.
I'm not sure whether a nonco view of a possible step-by-step approach (following Matthew 18 principles) would help you, but a possible sequence might be.
1. Meeting with the father to help identify first of all any issues of behaviour/conscience which continue to affect him.
2. Clarifying the circumstances surrounding the double baptism in so far as that is relevant to 1.
3. Clearing with the father (if necessary) any information which relates to the wider ecumenical issues and the extent to which your priest needs to know.
4. Presenting your priest with such information as you are able to pass on about the pastoral realities, the facts and the wider issues.
This leaves your priest free to see the father and mother (together or separately) if necessary about the wider issues. It also leave him free to pursue any wider ecumenical issues with others.
I would have thought, for example, that any complaint about the actions of the Anglican vicar would
a) have to be very soundly grounded in fact,
and
b) would need to judge both the wider effects and value of the complaint and the specific inpact on the marriage of the couple concerned. That might be a close call.
In short, I would pass the real hot potato upwards, but very carefully! In the meantime, while these processes are working out, there seems little alternative but to live with the implications of the "work in progress".
I hope you are now over your "lurgy" and my sympathies once again. In your position, I do not see how it is possible to drop the matter.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Any chance of a link to a Southern Baptist statement of faith that supports this? I can quite believe that there are nominal southern baptists who believe all sorts of things, but then I have questionnaire data suggesting that 25% of those who self-identify as catholics in France believe in reincarnation, which is not to say that the pope agrees with them.
[ETA: This is about as definitive as you get for Southern Baptists, and it seems to me to say exactly what I said it would say, with symbolic sacraments, no mention of the necessity of baptism for salvation, and church membership being a local church issue.] [/QB]
I re-read ken's post and I may have misunderstood what he was saying. I had though he was saying that Baptists will insist on full immersion and would not consider infant baptism as valid at all. All of the Southern Baptists I have run into, including a handful of pastors and deacons would not connect baptism with salvation yet would insist that one must be immersed and all other forms of baptism would be unacceptable.
On one other point, as a member of the Church of Christ I can assure you that what some describe as baptismal regeneration is still widely taught.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I was under the impression nowadays that you didn't have to be loyal to the 39 Arts to be an Anglican - at least that's the impression I've gained on these boards.
I had my tongue firmly in my cheek! But my point was that those of us who would be glad to see the Articles disappear would never question the importance of baptism as a sacrament. ISTM that if there are any anglicans (outside Sydney) who would deny this they would be the ones who otherwise would firmly defend the Articles. Or am I wrong?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
the OP isn't about RC-anglican dialogue, it's about a couple deciding that they don't want to play the "who gets the baby?" game [...]
The paedobaptist consensus on this thread seems to be that what the parents did is wrong because it queers the pitch for ecumenical dialogue based on syntactic agreement about "one baptism"
Not for me. I take a sacramentalist view of baptism and had my infant son baptised, but I have no problem with ecumenical dialogue with Christians of different views. I fully support (and I think I've agreed with you on other threads in the past about this) the action of a Christian who comes to believe that their infant baptism is not in accordance with what they understand to be the apostolic command, in getting baptised again. I think that they are wrong in fact, but right in their heart, and their second baptism is not a mockery of the sacrament, but a sincere attempt to do what Jesus wants.
The second baptism in the OP could be seen as a mockery - the vicar, if he had thought about it, could not have thought that his ceremony added anything to the valid baptism in the Catholic church. He knew that he was not doing what the service purports to do - bring the infant into Christ's church. IF infant baptism can do this, then it was done already. So the ceremony might be seen, at best, as a political expedience for this family, and at worst, as a disingenuous performance to please men rather than God. That's why it is objectionable - not because anabaptism per se is objectionable.
The problem (if that view is assumed) is to what extent Trisagion's Catholic parish can, should or must call the Anglican vicar to account. I would say only to a very limited extent - what the Anglican parish does is no part of the Catholic parish's disciplinary jurisdiction or official concern. The impact of this conduct will be on the personal level, and the resolution of it should therefore be (in the first instance at least) on the personal level. The vicar should be told why it is a problem for the Catholics, and an honest attempt should be made to deal with such situations in future so that it need not happen again.
The Catholics don't need to convince him that he is wrong (he is, IMO, but it's not their job to catechise Anglican priests), just persuade him of the need to be sensitive to their concerns in the future.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe you or someone else explained this higher up the thread, FD, but for the benefit of thickies like myself could you say what you mean by 'covenant paedo-baptists'?
Matt Black encapsulated it, with the rider that the child has to give informed assent eventually to this initial expression of a covenant relationship. quote:
Originally chucked in cheekily by Callan:
Notwithstanding random protestants playing fast and loose with the Articles of Religion in the nineteenth century.
That wasn't us ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 18. January 2007, 21:19: Message edited by: Foaming Draught ]
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
When I wrote
quote:
Many Baptists in the USA - millions of them - are in churches that insist that Baptism must be by full immersion and only recognise Baptist churches as churches, rejecting even full immersion believer's baptism practiced by other churches,
I wasn't thinking particularly of SBC but of only some SBC churches and also some of the as far as I know numerous independent Bapatist churches who are affiliated to smaller connexions than SBC or no connexion at all.
Also I wrote
quote:
Some of them - at least a large minority - make it a salvation issue.
which I think is the case. Some of them make baptism a salvation issue. Not all, or even most, but enough to take notice of.
"Churches of Christ" and the like aren't found in Britain as far as I know so I couldn't have been thinking of them. I assume they are very different from the UCC? Also not found in Britain but as far as I know the continuation of the historic Congregational churches, and these days rather liberal, perhaps the nearest thing to our very own URC.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
The Church of Christs I know don't make baptism a salvation issue now. However maybe a past position influenced the people who gave the guilt trip sermons at the baptisimal services I attended as a child and young teenager. My family only started going to a Church of Christ when I was 4 and that was largely because the local Baptist church didn't allow women in ministry at that time (or pretty much any role except sunday school or the kitchen) whereas the local Church of Christ was very liberal in this regard. This was in the 1980s if you're wondering.
As for the Baptist church I go to now - myself and many others who attend have come from other church backgrounds. Baptism is only an issue of local membership and as long as you had a believer's baptism you can be a member (as far as I know, though I'm not sure about those baptised as adults in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches - this situation would probably rarely come up). As said in my earlier post the church is now voting on open membership which most people are fine with (based on the first vote).
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I wasn't thinking particularly of SBC but of only some SBC churches and also some of the as far as I know numerous independent Bapatist churches who are affiliated to smaller connexions than SBC or no connexion at all. [snip] Some of them - at least a large minority - make it a salvation issue. which I think is the case. [snip] Some of them make baptism a salvation issue. [snip] Not all, or even most, but enough to take notice of.
Can you point us to one of those numerous examples?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
If Baptist churches which are officially part of the SBC ascribe any kind of salvific merit to baptism and the SBC find out about it then they'll get booted out of the SBC faster than you can say "Paige Patterson". I've come across no-one on the two baptist boards on which I post outside of the CoC who hold to that doctrine.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm sure Matt's right. It all links with the general understanding of sacraments as symbols of divine exchanges, but not in themselves effective. The way it was put to me was "the water doesn't do anything". The original aim of course links to the attitudes towards "priestly magic authorised and administered by the church" as necessary for salvation, as opposed to the sole authority of scripture. It's all in the book, guys.
Personally, I've moved a long way from that position over the years. I'm still not sure how the sacraments work but I'm blowed if I will limit the grace of God because of the prevailing theology I picked up when young. I'm by no means alone in that. I know a fair number of noncos who are now very comfortable with the notion of communion as both memorial and feeding, and the act of baptism being a time and a place when God does something through the water.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I know a fair number of noncos who are now very comfortable with the notion of communion as both memorial and feeding, and the act of baptism being a time and a place when God does something through the water.
I don't doubt what you say, but I struggle to imagine what sort of "something" that would be in the case of baptism. I'd certainly say that my baptism was a "special time", but ascribing it agency to "do" anything would require a major rejig of my thinking on salvation and ecclesiology, for example. I think that God often meets with baptismal candidates in a special way, but I think he has a habit of doing that whenever his people try to act in obedience to Scripture as they understand it [ETA so I have no trouble imagining that a christening can also be a "special time" for the parents, and that God can genuinely be especially close to those involved.]
[ 19. January 2007, 09:18: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
quote:
"Churches of Christ" and the like aren't found in Britain as far as I know
In Great Britian they are part of the United Reform Church.
Also remember that the SBC did what other US conservative groups do and left their more liberal international grouping. So when David Coffey was in Israel/Palestine with the Archbishops representing amoung others the Baptist World Alliance (he is the nearest thing Baptists have to a Pope) he was not representing Southern Baptists as they withdrew from the Baptist World Alliance.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
quote:
"Churches of Christ" and the like aren't found in Britain as far as I know
In Great Britian they are part of the United Reform Church.
Thats exactly what I was trying to get at. The UCC is associated with the British URC. But the "Churches of Christ" mentioned here are a different lot altogether, and we don't have anything like them.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
That's right. The United Church of Christ (in the States) is somewhere to the left of (name your favorite leftist). The Churches of Christ tend to the conservative side. If this reminds you of the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front, I'm not surprised.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Melon
I realised at some stage in my journey that I was dumb about sacramental theology. I still am in lots of ways; suffice to say that in my own understanding, the efficacy of sacraments suggests a "thin place" between God in eternity and the here and now. Through that thin place, God chooses out of his grace and mercy to bless people with the gift of himself. The water may wash, the bread may feed. In short, though human awarenesses and choices are significant, they do not necessarily determine what is going on in the divine exchange.
I've said nothing about the doctrine of the church as administer of the sacraments and the above statements contain a whole load of other loose ends. I'm sure folks from a sacramental background can do much better than that - as I say, I'm still pretty dumb about it. I have a sense that many of us have missed out a lot on the riches of sacramental understanding - and it is not necessarily incompatible with the riches of evangelical understanding. But I haven't yet joined up the dots.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
the efficacy of sacraments suggests a "thin place" between God in eternity and the here and now. Through that thin place, God chooses out of his grace and mercy to bless people with the gift of himself.
Ok, I could probably fit that sort of notion into my theology But it doesn't seem to have anything to do with salvation or membership of the church universal.
(I don't think that a symbolic understanding of the sacraments has to mean treating the sacraments as worthless. I remember talking to a US army chaplain who had been involved in one church where the leftover bread sometimes ended up being swept up with the other rubbish at the end of the service. He managed to bring about a change in practice by proposing to wash said floor using the American flag, because it's only a symbol you know...)
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Melon
I think I get you - God may bless sacramentally but he doesn't save sacramentally? I think that takes us back to Ephesians 2:8-9. Or maybe I'm just being dumb again?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
quote:
"Churches of Christ" and the like aren't found in Britain as far as I know
In Great Britian they are part of the United Reform Church.
Also remember that the SBC did what other US conservative groups do and left their more liberal international grouping. So when David Coffey was in Israel/Palestine with the Archbishops representing amoung others the Baptist World Alliance (he is the nearest thing Baptists have to a Pope) he was not representing Southern Baptists as they withdrew from the Baptist World Alliance.
the Liberal Churches of Christ are part of the United Reformed Church and have been since 1982. More conservative ones stayed outside the Union. Secondly Churches of Christ are adult baptising but sacramentalists, which is why they joined the URC and not the Baptist Union. Double baptism is no more acceptable to them than to your average paedobaptist.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
God may bless sacramentally but he doesn't save sacramentally?
I could live with that, although I'd prefer to say something like "God may and indeed does bless, and some of the means by which he blesses the most people the most frequently are sometimes called sacraments".
[ 19. January 2007, 14:00: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
quote:
"Churches of Christ" and the like aren't found in Britain as far as I know
In Great Britian they are part of the United Reform Church.
Thats exactly what I was trying to get at. The UCC is associated with the British URC. But the "Churches of Christ" mentioned here are a different lot altogether, and we don't have anything like them.
You do. There are very few congregations though and some of them "cater" to American expats and especially military personnel stationed in the U.K..
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
Also remember that the SBC did what other US conservative groups do and left their more liberal international grouping. So when David Coffey was in Israel/Palestine with the Archbishops representing amoung others the Baptist World Alliance (he is the nearest thing Baptists have to a Pope) he was not representing Southern Baptists as they withdrew from the Baptist World Alliance.
Granted, But I don't think that that means that David Coffey, his brother or indeed anyone else in BUGB believe in any kind of baptismal regeneration either; on that point at least they are on all fours with the SBC
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Melon
I realised at some stage in my journey that I was dumb about sacramental theology. I still am in lots of ways; suffice to say that in my own understanding, the efficacy of sacraments suggests a "thin place" between God in eternity and the here and now. Through that thin place, God chooses out of his grace and mercy to bless people with the gift of himself. The water may wash, the bread may feed. In short, though human awarenesses and choices are significant, they do not necessarily determine what is going on in the divine exchange.
I would tie it into an deep understanding of the Incarnation (sometimes called the Proto-Sacrament) and the idea that therefore matter matters. It's not just about things in `the heavenlies' but stuff in the here and now. As God took flesh so he uses material things to effect changes.
But this is wandering from the point of this thread and perhaps deserves a thread all of its own.
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes Carys, that's very good. I was trying and failing to find a way of saying that and "matter matters" is an excellent summary. I agree it links deeply with the Incarnation.
I think it is worth another thread but I'm not sure I can find a coherent way of putting it. "Sacraments revisited" might be a neat title. Feel free if you can come up with something.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
I'm up for another thread. And I totally agree that "matter matters", it's the contention that a few small bits of matter matter much more than all the other signs of God's grace that I struggle with.
At the ecumenical service I attended last night, the catholic priest told a story about his medieval theology lecturer who, when he himself was a student, got into deep trouble for taking biology textbooks to meditations. That's the kind of sacramentalism I can do business with
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Thank you all for your comments.
After much reflection, I brough this up with the Vicar about it last night after our WOPFCU service. I did so in the presence of my Parish Priest (but otherwise privately).
His (the Vicar's) response was to say that he didn't see it as a big deal, that he didn't believe in baptising infants any way and only did it because that was what they did at St X's. He said he hadn't had any of his children baptised and he couldn't se what we were so exercised about since didn't we have confirmation when it could all be sorted out.
Lovely.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
Ok, I take back everything I said, it was an anabaptist plot after all . Seriously, even I can see why this is not really what you want or expect from an anglican minister, and, whatever the parents' motivation, it doesn't sound like the minister's agenda had much to do with their concerns.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Thank you all for your comments.
After much reflection, I brought this up with the Vicar about it last night after our WOPFCU service. I did so in the presence of my Parish Priest (but otherwise privately).
His (the Vicar's) response was to say that he didn't see it as a big deal, that he didn't believe in baptising infants any way and only did it because that was what they did at St X's. He said he hadn't had any of his children baptised and he couldn't see what we were so exercised about since didn't we have confirmation when it could all be sorted out.
Lovely.
So the approach to the Bishop via the Area Dean would, it would seem, be extremely appropriate! If I had a priest who displayed such theological crassness, pastoral ineptitude and such disdain for the canons, I'd want to know and take it up with him.
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
If I had a priest who displayed such theological crassness, pastoral ineptitude and such disdain for the canons,
Bit more difficult when it's your diocesan and Primate ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loveheart
Blue-scarved menace
# 12249
|
Posted
Am I allowed to refer to a Vicar as "a jerk"? Please note I am not actually calling him one at this time, just questioning whether I CAN? Anything you may wish to infer from this is at your own discretion...
--------------------
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty. Mahatma Gandhi
Posts: 3638 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
If I had a priest who displayed such theological crassness, pastoral ineptitude and such disdain for the canons,
Bit more difficult when it's your diocesan and Primate
For this, FD, consider yourself called to Hell.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I did not need to make a decision about whether I really believed, or believed enough to be baptised.
I'm glad that your baptism was a good fit for you, but the above is precisely what I want to avoid for my own children.
That's not to say I did not make a decision, but that I did not have the issue of whether I had really decided. A friend of mine from a believers-only tradition struggled for a long time about whether she believed enough because she had never had a conversion experience because she had grown up in the Church. I did decide at 13 to be confirmed but that was only a step in a process which had begun at my baptism. I think that baptism as an infant is a far better way of dealing with children born to believers.
quote:
quote:
Interestingly, my mother came under the influence of people who did not accept infant baptism, but what stopped her was knowing that it would hurt her parents. Since then she has come to be very pro-infant baptism herself.
That sounds to me like exactly how the system is designed to work ![[Frown]](frown.gif) .
What do you mean by that? Her parents would have been upset because being baptism at that age would have been a rejection of how she had been brought up and of their sort of Christianity. I think that's why parents find it difficult because it comes across as `you're not a proper Christian'.
Carys
And that goes double when the person who baptised you as an infant was your own father.
Been there, got the wet T-shirt, sure that God doesn't particularly mind how many times I got wet, but wish I hadn't upset my dad in such a profound way.
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I agree with pete173. I would have thought that the matter could be taken up formally by Trisagion's priest, or possibly by members of St X's. How ironic this should happen after a WOPFCU service.
[ 22. January 2007, 07:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Been there, got the wet T-shirt, sure that God doesn't particularly mind how many times I got wet, but wish I hadn't upset my dad in such a profound way.
Ok, so my strategy should be to baptise my own children as believers (if/when that is appropriate), make as big a fuss about how important this is to me as possible, and about how their father and mother were baptised the same way, and how we have respected their freedom to make decisions just as my non-christian parents respected mine, and maybe link this to les droits de l'homme for effect, and that many men and women died horribly to win the right for us to follow our convictions, and so on and so on, and hope that this loads enough guilt onto my children's shoulders to stop them having their kids christened?
I know that's not what you are saying, but parent-originated guilt does seem to come up a lot when paedobaptists talk about baptism. Are there any other areas in which adult children give their parents a life-long veto on their behaviour?
As mentioned above, my father is an atheist, and there are dark stories in our family of Plymouth Brethren missionaries abandoning their children to serve the Lord, so my announcement that I was off to France as a missionary to work with neo-brethren churches did not qualify as good news ("and why save the French?!?!"). But, once they got over the shock, my parents (and those of my wife for that matter) have shown an incredible amount of grace in accepting our decisions, even though the consequences are ongoing (ie their grandchildren are in the wrong country and don't speak English properly).
That's what non-Christians consider normal. And that's my baseline for Christian grace wrt unwelcome decisions by children.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
