|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anglicans and Baptism
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?
Or, are you with God in condemning my children to a lost eternity?
I think you need to put up on this one!
I don't subscribe to the low-church "Only the strictly necessary is permissible" doctrine.
Baptism is God's means of grace, which confers forgiveness of sins and grafts one into the Body of Christ. If you think that is the sort of thing your children should (or can, at their age) have, then have them baptized.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?
Because it's a command of Our Lord.
Our Lord did not in fact say "only baptize when they reach the age of accountability." He did say "baptize all nations." I imagine children would fall under "all nations."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
John Calvin, showing his grimly poetic side, made drowning the sentence for anyone refusing to recant Anabaptism.
I wonder how come he managed that, when at the time they started drowning Anabaptists in Switzerland and Italy, Calvin was still a student in Paris? Maybe you mean Zwingli?
Calvin was also not involved in the massacres of revolting German peasants in the 1620s, or of the apocalyptic Anabaptists after the recapture of Munster in the 1630s. All that happened before he'd ever set foot in Geneva. It was mostly down to Lutherans and Catholics, allied for a change.
I'm no expert but as far as I can remember, when he did get into a position of influence in Geneva, Calvin wanted to exile Anabaptists, not execute them. But I'm open to correction.
I'm not saying that Calvin disapproved of executing heretics (though he seems to have been rather less in favour of it than most religious leaders of the time), or that he never asssented to the execution of a heretic (because we know he did at least once) but he didn't pick on Anabaptists in particular.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
John Calvin, showing his grimly poetic side, made drowning the sentence for anyone refusing to recant Anabaptism.
I wonder how come he managed that, when at the time they started drowning Anabaptists in Switzerland and Italy, Calvin was still a student in Paris? Maybe you mean Zwingli?
Calvin was also not involved in the massacres of revolting German peasants in the 1620s, or of the apocalyptic Anabaptists after the recapture of Munster in the 1630s. All that happened before he'd ever set foot in Geneva. It was mostly down to Lutherans and Catholics, allied for a change.
I'm no expert but as far as I can remember, when he did get into a position of influence in Geneva, Calvin wanted to exile Anabaptists, not execute them. But I'm open to correction.
I'm not saying that Calvin disapproved of executing heretics (though he seems to have been rather less in favour of it than most religious leaders of the time), or that he never asssented to the execution of a heretic (because we know he did at least once) but he didn't pick on Anabaptists in particular.
Yes, I did mean Zwingli. The one that died taking up the sword against unbelievers.
Sorry.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?
Because it's a command of Our Lord.
Our Lord did not in fact say "only baptize when they reach the age of accountability." He did say "baptize all nations." I imagine children would fall under "all nations."
Yes. It's often piously said that the Church must pay attention to children because they are the Church of tomorrow, but that ignores the fact that they are an actual, lively, complete part of the Church of today.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
A 16-year old mother with child in arms summons up her courage to knock on the door of the imposing and off-putting vicarage. The vicar opens the door, beams when he sees the visitors and invites them in. 'What can I do for you?' The girl timidly stutters, 'I'd like him done.' 'Wonderful,' the priest says. 'what makes you come here to ask that?' 'Me mum says if I don't get him done we're never going to win at bingo.' 'Right - we can't have that! Let's see when we can arrange the christening then.' So the young woman went off basking in the warmth of her welcome and from then on always thinking of the church, and God, as being on her side and somewhere to turn in times of need.
The bishop said it's all about our 'yes' to God. Sometimes that is a big 'yes', like Mary's 'yes'. But often it starts off very small, like the young girl's, but with encouragement and nurture it can grow.
Where the logic of the anecdote fails is when the requested service does not do the job. Take a parallel situation.
A hobbyist sends his son to pick up timber for a picnic table. Sonny boy arrives at the timber yard and says, "We need a load of 2x2s for a picnictable. So give me the stuff so that me and my dad can finally get this thing done."
The store staff know that 2x2s will never a picnic table make, but they are Friendly Al's Timber Supply, so they can't say, "No", they have a reputation to maintain. They send the requested material.
Now Father sets off to pick up the Book, and to his chagrin finds out that, according to the Book, 2x2s will never a picnic table make, and he's just wasted a whole passel of time and effort and cash. All avoidable if the "experts" had realised that expertise was the requiredment, and not "friendliness".
Right materials for the wrong job, wrong materials for the right job, both don't work.
There's a danger of the family being put off by the denial of service and misunderstanding the explanation given, but it's offset by the calamitous result of not being saved by getting the wrong service.
And appealing to practice is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Didn't work with the flat earthers, won't work with salvation by baptism...
[ 09. July 2012, 18:26: Message edited by: footwasher ]
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?
Because it's a command of Our Lord.
Our Lord did not in fact say "only baptize when they reach the age of accountability." He did say "baptize all nations." I imagine children would fall under "all nations."
Yes. It's often piously said that the Church must pay attention to children because they are the Church of tomorrow, but that ignores the fact that they are an actual, lively, complete part of the Church of today.
One thing that is a bit of a debate among my friends is offering communion to children. Part of the rationale for allowing children to receive is the fact that they are baptized and thus, full members of the Church and should be included in the Eucharistic feast.
Do anabaptists allow children to receive communion if they are not baptized?
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?
Because it's a command of Our Lord.
Our Lord did not in fact say "only baptize when they reach the age of accountability." He did say "baptize all nations." I imagine children would fall under "all nations."
Yes. It's often piously said that the Church must pay attention to children because they are the Church of tomorrow, but that ignores the fact that they are an actual, lively, complete part of the Church of today.
Yes, but unfortunately the Western church has become so fixated on providing ministry for children that the parents have become disempowered in teaching the faith to their children themselves. And the record of the church in doing this, with the horrendously high drop out rate of church kids when they hit teenage years makes me convinced we've got it badly wrong. YMMV.
Of course the western tradition of separating first communion from baptism - in contrast to the Orthodox practice where children are communicated from the time they are baptised - points to a recognition that there is something to happen before the child is fully 'an actual, lively, complete part of the Church of today'. Evangelicals understand that a matter of 'coming to faith'. What do Catholics label that process - or should every child that's been baptised be confirmed regardless of their faith or lack of it?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Anglican Brat: quote:
Do anabaptists allow children to receive communion if they are not baptized?
Probably not, since they put a high value on personal understanding and acceptance of the traditional rites of the church. But then, since the Lord's Supper, in their view, is a matter of symbolism and memorial and not actual substance, not receiving would not be a great loss in any case.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Anglican Brat: quote:
Do anabaptists allow children to receive communion if they are not baptized?
Probably not, since they put a high value on personal understanding and acceptance of the traditional rites of the church. But then, since the Lord's Supper, in their view, is a matter of symbolism and memorial and not actual substance, not receiving would not be a great loss in any case.
As a Baptist Pastor I'd allow a child/young person to take Communion who "loves the Lord Jesus" and if the parent felt it was appropriate. There's no condition of being Baptised in order to take Communion in the church I serve at or most other Baptist Churches.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Baptism with water or in water does not effect [SIC] salvation in any sense whatsoever.
1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21.
Baptism now saves you.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Ok then why bother to baptise?
Or, are you with God in condemning my children to a lost eternity?
I think you need to put up on this one!
1. I don't subscribe to the low-church "Only the strictly necessary is permissible" doctrine.
2 Baptism is God's means of grace, which confers forgiveness of sins and grafts one into the Body of Christ. If you think that is the sort of thing your children should (or can, at their age) have, then have them baptized.
1. Nor do I but what relevance does that have here?
2.So the unbaptised believer is not grafted into the body of Christ? (That is, if I am converted today but not baptised immediately). Do you believe such will be seperated from God, go to hell? Please answer the question - yes or no!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
Baptism with water or in water does not effect [SIC] salvation in any sense whatsoever.
1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21.
Baptism now saves you.
So does childbirth (if you're a woman).
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
Baptism with water or in water does not effect [SIC] salvation in any sense whatsoever.
1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21.
Baptism now saves you.
So does childbirth (if you're a woman).
The baptism spoken of in 1 Peter 3:21 is spoken of quite clearly as symbolic of our salvation. Ie going under the water 9hence total immersion) represents death and resurrection as with Christ
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
1. Nor do I but what relevance does that have here?
You seemed to make the argument that baptism was pointless if it didn't mean going unbaptized necessarily meant one went to hell. Which is functionally the same thing as "If it's not necessary, then don't do it."
quote:
2.So the unbaptised believer is not grafted into the body of Christ? (That is, if I am converted today but not baptised immediately). Do you believe such will be seperated from God, go to hell? Please answer the question - yes or no!
I have no particular inclination to answer questions that the Holy Scriptures leave unanswered.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Anglican Brat: quote:
Do anabaptists allow children to receive communion if they are not baptized?
Probably not, since they put a high value on personal understanding and acceptance of the traditional rites of the church. But then, since the Lord's Supper, in their view, is a matter of symbolism and memorial and not actual substance, not receiving would not be a great loss in any case.
As a Baptist Pastor I'd allow a child/young person to take Communion who "loves the Lord Jesus" and if the parent felt it was appropriate. There's no condition of being Baptised in order to take Communion in the church I serve at or most other Baptist Churches.
Same with us too - it's a choice on the parents behalf. In any event, how do those who administer communion in the CofE/Cathloic "know" if someone has been baptised or not?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
All true. But the solution to the woman's confusion is not a the sacrament of baptism for her baby.
Not the solution to her confusion, but a good in itself despite said confusion. Baptism is efficacious toward salvation regardless of the worthiness of recipient and, indeed, of that of the minister (would should come as some consolation to the members of your flock).
Baptism with water or in water does not effect salvation in any sense whatsoever.
So what did St. Paul mean when he said the following? “He saved us, not because of works of rightenousness which we have done, but according to his mercy, through washing of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit.” (Tit 3:5)
This might of course be interpreted metaphorically, but one should always consider what the literal meanings of the words used are. The greek word that I have translated ‘washing,’ can mean ‘washing,’ ‘washing place,’ ‘water.’ Now, the literal meaning of washing is something one does in water. It could be read metaphorically, but a metaphorical reading needs to be justified when a literal reading is equally possible.
And I must say that your comment is a bit like saying that since you are builing the house, the hammer does not effect the building process in any sense whatsoever. Of course it does, but as a means, a tool. Of course God could have not instituted baptism, he is onmipotent and he is spirit. But he did. And we aren’t ‘spiritual,’ we are flesh and bones.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
1. Nor do I but what relevance does that have here?
You seemed to make the argument that baptism was pointless if it didn't mean going unbaptized necessarily meant one went to hell. Which is functionally the same thing as "If it's not necessary, then don't do it."
quote:
2.So the unbaptised believer is not grafted into the body of Christ? (That is, if I am converted today but not baptised immediately). Do you believe such will be seperated from God, go to hell? Please answer the question - yes or no!
I have no particular inclination to answer questions that the Holy Scriptures leave unanswered.
I'll take that as a yes then.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I'll take that as a yes then.
Then you are either consciously misinterpreting me, or unconsciously misinterpreting me. Are you malicious or illiterate?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I'll take that as a yes then.
Then you are either consciously misinterpreting me, or unconsciously misinterpreting me. Are you malicious or illiterate?
Neither: I just like to have an answer to a question. If you're not prepared to give one, that's but I've assumed the worst in the absence of a yea or nay.
If the bible talks about the place of the saved and baptised as you put it, then a posteriori at least you must have an answer for the "saved but nor baptised."
[ 09. July 2012, 22:38: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Faith is a grace.
Undoubtedly, but that is not what is referred to:
quote:
Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace?
Answer. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness: for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.
BCP 1662, Catechism
Sorry, Daron, but Anglican tradition is avowedly not on your side here.
I do not believe in baptismal regeneration. I believe that all of the things mentioned the quote above are graces wrought sovereignly by the Holy Spirit. I also believe that baptism is an outward and visible sign of those graces. I do not accept that baptism in water effects what it signifies.
In this respect, I do not accept Anglican tradition as biblically tenable and consequently believe that it needs to be reformed.
Then why are you a priest in the CofE? If I was visiting a parish in the CofE, I would expect that the priest actually believed what he was ordained to uphold.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are so sure of your position, Daron, then write a letter informing your bishop of your refusal to baptize infants.
Can you answer my question above about the destination of the condemned in Mark 16:16? I'm interested - my children aren't baptised! Do they suffer because of my beliefs?
The Bible says that baptism is God's means of salvation.
No Zach. No, it really doesn't say that at all. I know you want it to say that, but it doesn't. It just doesn't.
Christ is the means of salvation
No, he is the saviour.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Neither: I just like to have an answer to a question. If you're not prepared to give one, that's but I've assumed the worst in the absence of a yea or nay.
If the bible talks about the place of the saved and baptised as you put it, then a posteriori at least you must have an answer for the "saved but nor baptised."
Do you even know what a posteriori mean?
Regardless, I will stand up for what I actually said, but I can't be bothered to stand up for what I didn't say.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So you've told your bishop that you have no intention of following the canons of the Church of England then?
Yoiu still haven't told me what's going to happen to unbaptised children who go to church and adults who believe and are unbaptised. I don't like to assume I know what you think but I'd really like to know!
I already said all I will. The Bible says that baptism is God's means of salvation, but does not say that those who are unbaptized are necessarily damned for it.
Ok then why bother to baptise?
Are you then saying that if there is a possibility that God might save you anyway, you shouldn’t bother becoming a Christian?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Then why are you a priest in the CofE? If I was visiting a parish in the CofE, I would expect that the priest actually believed what he was ordained to uphold.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
As has long been demonstrated by the unwillingness of bishops to act against priests who say the most outrageous things, the CofE is a broad church. On the whole this is an issue where I would regard its breadth as less harmful than a lot of others.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So does childbirth (if you're a woman).
The baptism spoken of in 1 Peter 3:21 is spoken of quite clearly as symbolic of our salvation. Ie going under the water 9hence total immersion) represents death and resurrection as with Christ
I don't disagree. My point is that according to the bible, lots of things save us. Baptism is one of them.
Saying that Baptism saves us says nothing about not-baptism. It doesn't follow from "baptism saves us" that not getting baptised condemns us, especially given the fact that the bible says that other things save us too.
There has been a fairly anti-"anabaptist" sentiment on this thread so far. I have sympathy with both positions, but I'm glad my parents didn't get me baptised as a baby and let me make my own mind up.
In terms of the discussion, there is one thing which is so obvious that I think people are forgetting it, and that is that, to someone who believes in believer's baptism, a baptism of a baby is no baptism at all. This shouldn't need saying, but some of the arguments on this thread have begun with the assumption that child-baptism is valid, and argued from that starting point. But that's totally circular, because an advocate of believer's baptism starts from an entirely different premise.
So saying that, according to scripture, a child is saved because they've been 'baptised', assumes that the baptism was valid in the first place. But someone who doesn't hold that premise isn't even asking the question of whether the 'baptism' saved the child in the first place.
Given our recent discussion on the Eucharist, it seems to me that the way that a Baptist approaches baptism is similar to the way a traditionalist approaches communion.
I can get all upset that lots of people think that the way that my church does communion doesn't 'count', but that doesn't really make a difference. That's their theology of the Eucharist, and though I can debate it (and readily have), they have to be true to it.
Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox can get all upset about the fact that Baptists (and others) don't think that baptising babies 'counts', but that doesn't really make a difference. Their theology says that baptism has to be accompanied by a confession of faith (by the person getting baptised). We can all debate that too, but a baptist has to be true to it.
Where that leaves people who disagree with the official teaching of their church is difficult. On the one hand, peoples' theology comes out of their conscience. You can't just decide to change what you believe. To say that someone should just join another church that teaches what they believe on this one issue is too simplistic. What if they don't agree with other doctrines of that church? Taken to its full extent, that just leaves us each in a church of one.
I think the ideal is that we try to remain united as Church despite variation in doctrine, and perhaps that's why the guy mentioned in the OP is still an Anglican minister. It's hard though, because people often pick one theology as THE theology that defines us, draw a line in the sand, and then we end up having to choose sides and arrive at church splits and denominations. There's no easy answer - at what point does our different theology mean that division is inevitable? I don't know, but I do think that pointing at a brother and saying "They're wrong!" and making that one theological issue more important than the faith that binds us together is not the way we should go (and that applies to both 'sides').
In the (so far) 11 pages of discussion on the 'online sacraments' thread, there is one post that stood out for me as central, and I think it is pertinent to this thread too:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have Jesus Christ at the very center of my belief. I'm willing to bet that is true of virtually everybody on this thread who calls himself/herself a Christian.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Daron, this is clearly Kerygmania, but what say you to 1 Peter 3:21. In the NRSV translation at least this refers to the salvific quality of baptism.
[Same disclaimer about koin Greek...]
OK, I'll bite and at least play Devil's Advocate on this one: proponents of baptismal regeneration cite the first half of this verse whilst trying to ignore the second: "...not[by] the removal of bodily dirt but [by] the pledge of a good conscience towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (italics mine). The "pledge of the good conscience" is dependent upon repentance.
--------------------
"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
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
to someone who believes in believer's baptism, a baptism of a baby is no baptism at all.
That depends on the person who believes in believer's baptism! I was baptised as a baby and later confirmed, both in the CofE. Until recently I was in membership at a Baptist Church. I was allowed into membership (and into the diaconate) on the basis of my infant baptism and subsequent confirmation, which included a profession of faith. The view of my infant baptism was that it was valid but irregular. Of course, a more closed Baptist fellowship would have taken a very different view.
quote:
OK, I'll bite
I only really threw that passage in there as Daron was coming across so strongly with his position, apparently oblivious that he was quite prepared to ignore, or simply truck over, any biblical passages which might challenge his position. He's gone now...
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Daron, this is clearly Kerygmania, but what say you to 1 Peter 3:21. In the NRSV translation at least this refers to the salvific quality of baptism.
[Same disclaimer about koin Greek...]
OK, I'll bite and at least play Devil's Advocate on this one: proponents of baptismal regeneration cite the first half of this verse whilst trying to ignore the second: "...not[by] the removal of bodily dirt but [by] the pledge of a good conscience towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (italics mine). The "pledge of the good conscience" is dependent upon repentance.
You seem to assume that proponents of baptismal regeneration and/or children’s baptism doesn’t care about the latter part. But that is not true at all. We haven’t denied that faith is also essential, we just deny that (at least in the case of infants, children and some mentally challenged persons) express faith is needed to get the sacrament of baptism. The Bible doesn’t say what must come first. And it’s interesting to note that in Judaism, (male) children are circumsized as (eight days old) infants. They are then brought up, and will later take a stand (or not). Adult converts to judaism, however, first have to ‘take a stand,’ and will then (if they are male, that is) be circumsized. St. Paul did indeed liken baptism to circumcision, and a major difference is that it’s no longer male-specific.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
St Paul also states that those who live like the uncircumcised lose the benefits of circumcision, which is, in the main, membership of God's community of set apart people, set apart for a purpose.
Romans 2
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
A fairly typical evo view of I Pet 3:21 can be found in Kistemaker, Simon J. ; Hendriksen, William: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 16), S. 147:
quote:
What does Peter mean when he introduces the term symbol? Are the waters of the flood the original and is baptism a symbol of the flood? No, not really. We should not make any comparison between something great (the flood waters) and something small (the water of baptism), because Peter is only indicating likeness or correspondence.72 The text allows for a resemblance between the flood and baptism. That is, as the flood waters cleansed the earth of man’s wickedness, so the water of baptism indicates man’s cleansing from sin. As the flood separated Noah and his family from the wicked world of their day, so baptism separates believers from the evil world of our day. Baptism, then, is the counterpart of the flood.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The Bible doesn’t say what must come first. And it’s interesting to note that in Judaism, (male) children are circumsized as (eight days old) infants. They are then brought up, and will later take a stand (or not). Adult converts to judaism, however, first have to ‘take a stand,’ and will then (if they are male, that is) be circumsized.
Ummh, those points are moot.
The Bible does not say what must come first, that is true, but every single instance of baptism in Acts describes faith preceding baptism.
Circumcision is an interesting issue since that what was so radical about John the Baptist. Baptism wasn't new for Jews, but baptising circumcised Jews was. He had adult Jews, who had been circumcised, 'make a stand' before baptising them.
[None of this categorically proves anything, but it does put a very different spin on things to what you are claiming. As I said, the points are moot.]
[ 13. July 2012, 03:55: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
And I think it would be unwise to hang so much on Col 2:11-12 (to which I presume you (K-Mann) allude) as demonstrative that New Covenant Baptism corresponds to Old Covenant circumcision. That's only one possible interpretation of that passage, and Paul himself does not expressly make that connection. It's tenuous at best so I would be very wary of saying that baptism is some kind of rite of initiation for infants under the New Covenant as circumcision was under the Old, at least based on this passage alone.
There's also the evidence cited by JohnnyS that every instance of baptism in the NT follows rather than precedes faith/ repentance, plus there is no evidence of infants being baptised, save for the possible inferential mention of the Philippian jailer's 'household'.
[ 13. July 2012, 08:33: 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
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
I'm a bit late to this discussion, as I was having a quick search for threads on infant baptism so we know what we're letting Baby Spouse in for.
I wonder if the argument would be any different if the situation was along the lines of:
Southern Baptist grandmother has been taking her grandson, aged 8, to church for a few weeks. Grandfather is ill. Grandmother tells grandson we all have to pray and believe and Grandpa will be well, and grandson picks up not much more than "if you believe you get baptised and if you believe Grandpa will get better". I know that this age (around the Catholic First Communion age, rather than around the Confirmation age) is fairly common for baptism in some traditions.
Grandson says "I need to be baptised, Grandma" and goes forward for an altar call and Grandma says "Halleluja!" (sorry for cliches).
This is a child who has said, in their own words, that they are ready to be baptised and that they believe. Can they really understand what this means at this age?
Would the minister be justified (under the "grandparents don't know what baptism or belief is really about" test) in baptising this child, who has only been to church about 3 times and (let's say for the sake of argument) has not been exposed to any explanation of Christianity before this and is really very young (younger than would be normal for an independent expression of belief in many Christian traditions and many other religions, but as I say this is a common age for baptism in some traditions).
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't think anybody really understands what they're letting themselves in for with baptism, at any age. But as it's a gift of God, that doesn't really matter. The thing that concerns me about your scenario is that the whole "honor your parents" thing is left out of it. We are hesitant to baptize children whose parents oppose it except in emergency, because of the conflict that sets up.
Other than that angle, though, I'm okay with baptizing anybody at any age, though if there is time (which there may not be), an older person really ought to be told the basics of Jesus and the faith first. But if incapable for age or health reasons, just go ahead and baptize. There is nothing to suggest that baptism is in any way harmful, even if misunderstood; and as Peter explained just before helping to baptize what? 3000 people, "The promise is for you [i]and your children,[i] for all whom the Lord will call." (Acts 2 I believe, and the Greek word for children is the one commonly used of infants, teknia--though older ones can be included as well)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"The promise is for you and your children, for all whom the Lord will call." (Acts 2 I believe, and the Greek word for children is the one commonly used of infants, teknia--though older ones can be included as well)
Teknia can be used to describe adults in the NT too.
Most commentators (of both sides of the debate as far as I'm aware) read v 39 as referring to subsequent generations, regardless of age.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Can be, but by metaphor (as in 1 John's "Little children"). All I can say is that if actual children are specifically excluded from baptism, then Peter chose a MOST misleading term to use in this context. Bad boy, Peter.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Can be, but by metaphor (as in 1 John's "Little children").
Right, as many paedobaptists also read this passage. Even someone like John Stott would see the emphasis in this passage being on a promise to subsequent generations. They would see it as including young children, sure, but not being about children.
(Also Abraham uses this term to the rich man in Jesus' parable in Luke 16. There the metaphor of spiritual child is stretched much further over many more generations.)
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
All I can say is that if actual children are specifically excluded from baptism, then Peter chose a MOST misleading term to use in this context. Bad boy, Peter.
But that is a circular argument.
I agree that the verse cannot possibly be used to exclude children from baptism. However, my point is that it isn't a proof-text for either side.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
