|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A Church?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Even if we didn't go as far as that, I think that even if the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch was influenced by/a form of Jewish ceremonial libation it still doesn't get the SA off the hook on this one.
Sure, there were all manner of ritual washings and purification rituals and so on within Judaism. If this was a contentious issue among the early Christians then they would surely have debated it as they debated whether Gentile converts should be circumcised.
The fact that they don't appear to have done suggests to me that Jewish cleansing and purification rituals morphed into Christian baptism without anyone being all that exercised about it.
Sure, we're told that Jesus didn't baptise and Paul makes it clear that he apparently didn't baptise many of the Corinthians himself - 1 Corinthians 1:14 - but that wasn't on the basis of any qualms about baptism, but so that none could say that they were baptised in his name rather than in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Of course, in early Christian writings you get all kinds of symbolism/significance being attached to these things - baptisms of blood and so on in relation to martyrdom for instance.
The apostle Paul appears to have used the imagery of libations and 'washings' and so on in ways that went beyond the purely literal.
Heck, even today the RC Church has the concept of 'intention' - of people who by their deeds, actions and so on show the 'intention' of doing the right thing, as it were, even if they don't stick to the letter of the law - if I can put it that way.
Whilst I'm not on the same page as the SA on this one, I would have thought that some of our more sacramental friends would be prepared to cut the SA some slack on that basis. The SA may not practice baptism, but they show by their actions that the 'intention' is there as it were.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am amazed at how literally people on this thread take the 'command' to baptise' and eucharistise.
Jesus also commanded that people should sell all they have and give to the poor but nobody yet has insisted that those of us who don't are not 'proper Christians.'
This is why we have a Church and not just a Bible. To tell us which things to turn into sacraments, and which things are context-specific and not binding on all people. We charge our bishops to "rightly divide the Word of Truth." Without the 2000-year historic record of the Church, the Bible can be interpreted thousands of mutually inconsistent ways. How fortunate we are that we're not without the 2000-year historic record of the Church.
Isn't it wonderful how the Church can tell us to ignore certain precepts and explain them away?
If we gave all to the poor, that would be less for the Church's coffers
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Bullshit. The word "baptism" by the time Luke was writing meant far more than simply 'immersion.' Are you mistaking etymology for meaning?
Interestingly, it's not just Luke's use of the word. In Mark chapter 7, verse 4, we read: "When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches." (NKJV).
The word 'couches' (κλινων) - literally 'beds', but curiously translated 'tables' in the KJV - only appears in certain manuscripts (presumably only the textus receptus?), but apparently these objects were subject to 'washing' (βαπτισμους) by the "etymological immersion" method, which does seem rather far fetched. Clearly the word meant any kind of washing.
Or maybe this was a sinister corruption of the text by early 'sprinklers'?! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
So the Ethiopian Eunuch just wanted to take a bath? Bull-fucking-shit. Mudfrog's argument is "ALL that baptism means is 'wash'." I was countering that. Proving that it sometimes means that has nothing to do with the argument at all; your entire post is one huge non sequitur.
I didn't say that at all!
I'm saying that the meaning in the Gospels of the word 'baptise' is the ritual ceremonial washings that Jewish people practiced.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, that's how I took your comments, Mudfrog.
Even if that is what they mean ... and I see no reason to dispute your thesis - at least not in broad terms - it hardly counts as an argument in favour of dispensing with baptism or ignoring its use in a Christian context.
Ok - I know the SA position is more subtle and nuanced than that - you aren't seeking to obviate or undermine any form of sacramental observance or practice - simply choosing not to practice these particular sacraments/ordinances yourselves in order to draw attention to other or parallel aspects (or integral aspects?) that you see as equally or primarily important ...
Which is probably a cack-handed way of summarising your position. You can obviously do it better than me.
I can think of analogous, but not exactly comparable, positions with some Adventist groups. We know a lovely chap here who belongs to a tiny Adventist group that meets in a tin shed. Charmingly, they meet at 3.16pm on a Saturday in honour of John 3:16 ...
I kid you not. Their meetings start at 3.16pm on the dot.
Now, this chap is a lovely, very eirenic Christian and if you met him you wouldn't have him down as an Adventist at all. In fact, he's not that bothered about the whole Saturday Sabbath thing but belongs to that group because he likes the way they do things and also because - in an odd kind of a way - he sees it as being 'non-denominational' and therefore truly ecumenical.
I admire his sincerity, but find it puzzling why his co-religionists have put themselves out on something of a limb over some arcane interpretation of what day believers should gather on.
I s'pose I come back to my point about 'Holy Fools' and so on ... if this eccentricity can highlight or illuminate something important that the rest of us are overlooking or need to recover - then fair enough.
I'm not sure I can think of anything in this instance ... unless it's the broader point of doing things 'differently' and sometimes quirkily. Although I'm not sure how far that gets us.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If we gave all to the poor, that would be less for the Church's coffers
If you're attending a church that keeps its money rather than doing good works with it, you might want to find another. And I can say that since I am part of two churches, both almost broke, one of which does a huge amount of practical good in the community.
Does it provide irony meters for those whose existing ones have failed? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If we gave all to the poor, that would be less for the Church's coffers
If you're attending a church that keeps its money rather than doing good works with it, you might want to find another. And I can say that since I am part of two churches, both almost broke, one of which does a huge amount of practical good in the community.
Does it provide irony meters for those whose existing ones have failed?
Apparently it should!
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
I admire the SA very much, especially their record of good works and their help of people who really need it.
If I've understood correctly, in the early days, Booth said it wasn't a church, and also said anyone was free to go to a church and be baptised, have communion, etc. So in those days the SA was a group, an organisation, which you could join while also going to a church for your sacraments and other forms of spiritual sustenance.
This stance made sense.
The difficulty now is that the SA is calling itself a church.
Mudfrog wants to know if we non-Salvatonists see it as a church. Answers have varied from yes, if you want to call yourselves that, to, no way, because you aren't doing the basic Christian things of
baptising and having the Eucharist.
Even those who say, yes, you're a church if you want to call yourselves one, agree that the SA, like the Quakers, is a very unusual church in the Christian spectrum.
The thing is, in choosing to call itself a church the SA has raised expectations and will continually have to defend itself against this charge of not being a real Christian church because no sacraments.
Mudfrog, now it's a church, do the leaders still see it as ok to join the SA but to also go regularly to other churches for sacraments?
In Booth's day, that made sense, as the SA wasn't claiming to be a church or to offer what churches offer. Now, though, saying "we are a church" sort of suggests that if you join, you will be expected to worship primarily there and find your main spiritual fulfilment there.
I think my answer to the OP is that some will say it's a valid church, some will say it isn't, but as long as the SA claims to be a Christian church while not offering the traditional (from Acts and Didache onwards, as has been said) sacraments, it is choosing to be an anomaly in the Christian world.
I think it's a shame that this sometimes results in people pronouncing dogmatic judgement over whether or not the SA can be called Christian, to the extent of seeming to judge its entirely laudable mission and its people as falling short-- even when this judgement isn't intended, it's felt that way, as we see here on this thread.
But I think this is the inevitable result of the SA's now calling itself a Christian church. It has put itself in a more difficult position to defend.
A pity, because all this time, this SA continues its wonderful work which epitomises the Christian spirit!
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Well said, Cara. I think Mudfrog has confirmed upthread that SA-ers are welcome to be baptised and share communion at other churches. But I agree with you that problem arose when they started considering themselves a church / denomination rather than a Christian-based philanthropic organisation.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, it was more than philanthropy, South Coast Kevin. The original name of the SA, if I'm not mistaken, was 'The Christian Mission.'
It was a missionary organisation dedicated to reaching people who, for whatever reason, the churches (both Established and non-conformist) weren't reaching in any great numbers.
It had a Wesleyan holiness base but was genuinely ecumenical in spirit. The original intention - and I see no difference in the SA's intention now - was to reach people with the Gospel - in both word and deed.
As Mudfrog has outlined, it increasingly became difficult for the Army to function as some kind of parachurch or missionary arm on behalf of the existing churches because of kerfuffle over who could or should be admitted to communion and so forth.
There was even some talk of the SA becoming rather like the Church Army at one point - a kind of evangelistic corps or arm of the CofE.
When this proved unfeasible for a variety of reasons, the Anglicans formed the Church Army using the SA as a model and inspiration to some extent.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I wonder what would/could have happened if both sides - the CofE Establishment and the revivalist Booth could have found some kind of accommodation?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Mudfrog
I'm a curious about the figures regarding water baptism for members of your denomination. What percentage of Salvationists would you say choose to get baptised? I presume that few choose to have their children baptised as infants, so at what age do they typically decide to have a believers' baptism?
Moreover, which other denominations are normally chosen to do the job? There must be some denominations that happily serve the SA in this way - but not those that feel highly critical of the SA's position, I imagine. Do Salvationists really feel comfortable being baptised by clergy who make their disapproval obvious?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Why would clergy from other denominations have problems baptizing a member of the Salvation Army? I wouldn't. My understanding is a Church of England parish priest would be expected to baptize the person presenting themselves for baptism. Their extreme position on the sacraments is the only problem the Salvation Army has. The rest of their doctrine is orthodox.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
They might perform the ritual, but I'm sure that some of them might be unable to repress their disapproval of SA theology regarding baptism, especially if they've never heard of it before.
As for the CofE, I know they like to baptise all babies presented to them, but are they really as laid-back regarding adult candidates, especially those who don't plan on becoming committed Anglicans?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, it was more than philanthropy, South Coast Kevin. The original name of the SA, if I'm not mistaken, was 'The Christian Mission.'
It was a missionary organisation dedicated to reaching people who, for whatever reason, the churches (both Established and non-conformist) weren't reaching in any great numbers.
Yep, fair enough. 'Philanthropic' wasn't a great choice of word on my part.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I would see TSA as more of a 'para-church' organisation; rather akin but not identical to the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would see TSA as more of a 'para-church' organisation; rather akin but not identical to the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship.
It cannot be a 'para-church' organisation because membership of TSA precludes membership of any other church. You cannot be a member of the Army and be a Baptist or an Anglican or a Methodist.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Is that a Salvation Army rule, or more imagined persecution from the Church?
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Would you be able to be a Baptist and a Catholic at the same time?
And who would be persecuting us? Are you suggesting an Inquisition?
[ 30. October 2013, 05:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
They might perform the ritual, but I'm sure that some of them might be unable to repress their disapproval of SA theology regarding baptism, especially if they've never heard of it before.
As for the CofE, I know they like to baptise all babies presented to them, but are they really as laid-back regarding adult candidates, especially those who don't plan on becoming committed Anglicans?
The Church of England doesn't 'like' to baptise all babies presented to it: it has a - I think I am right in saying legally enforceable- duty to do so. And AFAIK that duty extends to adult candidates for baptism as well.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Would you be able to be a Baptist and a Catholic at the same time?
And who would be persecuting us? Are you suggesting an Inquisition?
You are imagining persecution again if you think any of those denominations would kick you out for going to Salvation Army meetings.
And you brought back a thread 19 days dead to say it too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Would you be able to be a Baptist and a Catholic at the same time?
And who would be persecuting us? Are you suggesting an Inquisition?
You are imagining persecution again if you think any of those denominations would kick you out for going to Salvation Army meetings.
And you brought back a thread 19 days dead to say it too.
I think you have read me wrong and inferred something I didn't write. It is The Salvation Army that would say you cannot belong to another religious body, not the other way round.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The Church of England doesn't 'like' to baptise all babies presented to it: it has a - I think I am right in saying legally enforceable- duty to do so. And AFAIK that duty extends to adult candidates for baptism as well.
So the SA could basically outsource all their baptismal demand to the CofE, then? Interesting.
Mudfrog
Have members of the SA ever talked about their experiences of being baptised by other denominations? Does this work out okay on the whole? Which denominations do they normally chose?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Would you be able to be a Baptist and a Catholic at the same time?
And who would be persecuting us? Are you suggesting an Inquisition?
You are imagining persecution again if you think any of those denominations would kick you out for going to Salvation Army meetings.
And you brought back a thread 19 days dead to say it too.
I think you have read me wrong and inferred something I didn't write. It is The Salvation Army that would say you cannot belong to another religious body, not the other way round.
It seems to me, then, that all animosity about Churches barring Salvationists from Communion is misplaced. We don't bar our members from joining TSA in my denomination. In fact, I think most of us would praise anyone that took up extra-ecclesiastical devotions or charity work.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We don't bar our members from joining TSA in my denomination. In fact, I think most of us would praise anyone that took up extra-ecclesiastical devotions or charity work.
Have you really considered what you are saying here?
Has anyone in your denomination actually joined The Salvation Army, entered into the soldier's covenant and been sworn-in under the flag and now wears uniform?
Oh, and by the way, I have never spoken about any Christian denomination barring Salvationists from communion or baptism - except the incidents I mention from 1882, and the obvious one that stands today where, along with all non-Catholics, we are barred from Mass.
[ 31. October 2013, 18:53: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The Church of England doesn't 'like' to baptise all babies presented to it: it has a - I think I am right in saying legally enforceable- duty to do so. And AFAIK that duty extends to adult candidates for baptism as well.
So the SA could basically outsource all their baptismal demand to the CofE, then? Interesting.
Mudfrog
Have members of the SA ever talked about their experiences of being baptised by other denominations? Does this work out okay on the whole? Which denominations do they normally chose?
Yes, Salvationists will speak openly about their experience of baptism. Being a believers' baptism it's usually Baptist or Pentecostal, depending on relationships with local fellowships. It's highly unlikely that any Salvationist would go to a Church of England church to be baptised. It would have to be an evangelical baptism. I have known of young salvationists who were baptised in light-coloured clothes and then came back into the church after drying off, having putting on their uniforms.
[ 31. October 2013, 18:59: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
It would have to be evangelical baptism? There are plenty of evangelical churches that practice infant baptism and have no facilities for immersion. Some Anglican churches, however do have facilities for immersion, some Anglicans are even evangelical.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Mudfrog, you are certainly not banned from participating in a Catholic Mass,but unless you accept what the Catholic church teaches about Communion it would make no sense to approach the altar and receive the Sacred Host. No more than anyone wishing to be clothed in the Salvation Army uniform without believing that it signifies what the Army says that it signifies.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It would have to be evangelical baptism? There are plenty of evangelical churches that practice infant baptism and have no facilities for immersion. Some Anglican churches, however do have facilities for immersion, some Anglicans are even evangelical.
I meant a baptism with an evangelical theology
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Mudfrog, you are certainly not banned from participating in a Catholic Mass,but unless you accept what the Catholic church teaches about Communion it would make no sense to approach the altar and receive the Sacred Host. No more than anyone wishing to be clothed in the Salvation Army uniform without believing that it signifies what the Army says that it signifies.
Yes we are; I have been! I was on a chaplaincy course in a seminary where half of us were Methodists/Salvationists/Anglicans/Baptists and we were told beforehand that we were welcome to sit in the mass but we would not be allowed the bread and the wine.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hopefully without muddying the waters any further - if that were possible - it strikes me that there's even more of a conundrum emerging here.
Is the SA saying that a baptism that isn't accompanied by an evangelical theology is somehow invalid?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
In which case, it seems a bit arch for Salvationists to pontificate on the validity or otherwise of any form of Trinitarian baptism when it's not something they practice themselves ...
I'm sure that's not what's intended though.
But it does seem odd that the SA should stipulate that it should be an 'evangelical baptism' (whatever that means) when its members choose to be baptised somewhere.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not out to knock the Army nor those within its ranks who choose to be baptised or who choose not to be.
But it does strike me that the Army's stance here - if I've understood it correctly - raises a lot more issues than meets the eye at first.
But then, there are parallel issues everywhere else, so I'm not singling them out for censure in any way.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hopefully without muddying the waters any further - if that were possible - it strikes me that there's even more of a conundrum emerging here.
Is the SA saying that a baptism that isn't accompanied by an evangelical theology is somehow invalid?
In which case, it seems a bit arch for Salvationists to pontificate on the validity or otherwise of any form of Trinitarian baptism when it's not something they practice themselves ...
I'm sure that's not what's intended though.
But it does seem odd that the SA should stipulate that it should be an 'evangelical baptism' (whatever that means) when its members choose to be baptised somewhere.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not out to knock the Army nor those within its ranks who choose to be baptised or who choose not to be.
But it does strike me that the Army's stance here - if I've understood it correctly - raises a lot more issues than meets the eye at first.
But then, there are parallel issues everywhere else, so I'm not singling them out for censure in any way.
It seems to me that you are knocking down some straw men of your own creating!
Firstly, no one is saying that anyone's baptism is invalid. What I am suggesting is that Salvationists would probably go for an adult believer's baptism - by virtue that they are are adult believers! They would probably choose an evangelical church because that's what we are - evangelical!
Secondly, Salvationists do not 'pontificate' on the baptismal preferences of other churches and your use of that word suggests, nay implies strongly, your lack of respect for the SA and the position it takes.
Thirdly, the SA has no position on which baptism may or may not be valid. It simply allows ots members to be baptised if they wish to be. We do not issue a list of recommended churches where to get get it done.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Mudfrog, you are certainly not banned from participating in a Catholic Mass,but unless you accept what the Catholic church teaches about Communion it would make no sense to approach the altar and receive the Sacred Host. No more than anyone wishing to be clothed in the Salvation Army uniform without believing that it signifies what the Army says that it signifies.
Yes we are; I have been! I was on a chaplaincy course in a seminary where half of us were Methodists/Salvationists/Anglicans/Baptists and we were told beforehand that we were welcome to sit in the mass but we would not be allowed the bread and the wine.
We have a difference of understanding about what 'participating' means here, I think. I'd say that participation in a Eucharist is, at best, impaired if you aren't allowed to receive the Sacrament (at least, if you are accustomed to doign so elsewhere), but that doesn't mean that all yo can do otherwise is just 'sit in'. But I think this is straying into dead horse territory.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Firstly, no one is saying that anyone's baptism is invalid. What I am suggesting is that Salvationists would probably go for an adult believer's baptism - by virtue that they are are adult believers!
Y'all don't reproduce?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Firstly, no one is saying that anyone's baptism is invalid. What I am suggesting is that Salvationists would probably go for an adult believer's baptism - by virtue that they are are adult believers!
Y'all don't reproduce?
LOL
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No Mudfrog, I'm not setting up straw-men, I was simply following another line of speculation suggested by your comments and if you'd read my post properly you will have seen that I made it clear that I didn't believe that the rather extreme position I painted was in fact the SA position on these things.
So, no lack of respect for the SA there.
Do not Pass Go, do not collect your £200.
As I often do on the Ship, I posit an extreme position in order to either get a reaction or a response which clarifies what that person actually believes.
Which you have done, so on that basis you do Pass Go and you do collect your £200.
As it happens, I can see the logical consistency of the SA's approach in this respect with the position and theology it holds. I was just winding you up to a certain extent ... in a playful rather than a disrespectful way, I hope.
But you must admit, it could become something of a conundrum. It would be rather like the RCs, say, suggesting that whilst they don't really approve of Roman Catholics receiving communion in other churches but if they were to do so, then it would be preferable if they were to do so in a church with a high sacramental theology rather than, say, a low-church Anglican or a Baptist church.
Now, of course I know that the SA doesn't have a prescribed list of where its members can and can't go if they want to be baptised and yes, of course those that do are going to choose 'adult baptism' (or believers' baptism) and obtain that in one or other evangelical setting because the SA is evangelical ...
That all figures. I was simply playing Devil's Advocate to a certain extent and pointing out a potential conundrum in this position.
I don't see how that's disrespectful.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, Salvationists will speak openly about their experience of baptism. Being a believers' baptism it's usually Baptist or Pentecostal, depending on relationships with local fellowships. It's highly unlikely that any Salvationist would go to a Church of England church to be baptised. It would have to be an evangelical baptism. I have known of young salvationists who were baptised in light-coloured clothes and then came back into the church after drying off, having putting on their uniforms.
All adult baptisms in the Church of England are inherently believer's baptisms. We had a few months ago, a lady from a Muslim background. And it's an evangelical parish. I myself was immersed earlier this year, although being already infant baptized, it was technically a reaffirmation of my baptism accompanied by an immersion. Our tub gets pretty decent use, actually.
Sure you are not actually suggesting that an adult presenting themselves for baptism MUST choose a Baptist or Pentecostal church over an Anglican or Methodist - because the latter also baptize infants? That really doesn't make any sense to me.
[ 01. November 2013, 08:51: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think that Mudfrog was suggesting that at all, Seekingsister.
I would posit that the natural expectation of a Salvationist who wanted to be baptised would be that this would be most readily available at a Baptist or Pentecostal church than an Anglican.
I wasn't aware that Anglicans performed adult baptisms by immersion until relatively recently, nor that people are immersed in reaffirmation of the baptismal promises made on their behalf as infants until I saw it being done in our local parish.
These things may appear common from the inside, but there are far from widely known across the wider spectrum. When I've told some Baptist and 'new-church' people that Anglicans do the sort of things you've described they've been astonished and rather incredulous.
So it doesn't surprise me in the least that a Salvationist wouldn't immediately think CofE if they were looking for somewhere to get baptised.
Quite frankly, I'd be more surprised if they did.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think that Mudfrog was suggesting that at all, Seekingsister.
I would posit that the natural expectation of a Salvationist who wanted to be baptised would be that this would be most readily available at a Baptist or Pentecostal church than an Anglican.
I wasn't aware that Anglicans performed adult baptisms by immersion until relatively recently, nor that people are immersed in reaffirmation of the baptismal promises made on their behalf as infants until I saw it being done in our local parish.
These things may appear common from the inside, but there are far from widely known across the wider spectrum. When I've told some Baptist and 'new-church' people that Anglicans do the sort of things you've described they've been astonished and rather incredulous.
So it doesn't surprise me in the least that a Salvationist wouldn't immediately think CofE if they were looking for somewhere to get baptised.
Quite frankly, I'd be more surprised if they did.
That makes more sense. It seems to me that with more people who are totally unchurched/non-Christian, and more people who like me were baptized as infants but didn't really practice for many years, immersions for adults are going to become more common.
In the year or so I've been an active Church of England member, I have not seen a single infant baptism. I've seen a few adult baptisms/reaffirmations and a great deal of infant dedications.
I just Googled and found this article from the United Methodists (US), it seems they are experiencing something similar.
Don't look now, but Methodists are getting dunked
Archbishop Sentamu is also huge fan of them!
2006 Open Air Baptisms
2013 Public Baptisms
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, but your experience isn't typical of the CofE as a whole, Seekingsister. Our parish church here is evangelical and prefers to steer unchurched or less regularly churched people towards infant dedication rather than infant baptism, but it will do them ...
The other parish in town has monthly infant baptisms and baptises the children of anyone who comes and asks without seeking to establish their spiritual credentials as it were ...
So I suspect that most people in your area who want to get their babies baptised but who don't want to face the rigmarole of catechesis or whatever might be offered at your parish - preparation classes, explanations of the Christian faith etc etc - would simply go and find another Anglican church with a less rigorous baptismal policy.
I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just observing what's likely to happen.
I don't believe that there wouldn't be people in the immediate parochial vicinity of your Anglican church who haven't gone somewhere else to get their infants baptised rather than approach the 'keenies' at your parish ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
If an unbaptized Salvationist turned up at a non-evangelical CofE seeking baptism, what would be the typical method? Affusion?
The thing that slightly confuses me about mudfrog's point, is that if SA doesn't think water baptism is necessary, then a Salvationist who wants one surely can choose any method they like? They're equally optional, surely?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If an unbaptized Salvationist turned up at a non-evangelical CofE seeking baptism, what would be the typical method? Affusion?
The thing that slightly confuses me about mudfrog's point, is that if SA doesn't think water baptism is necessary, then a Salvationist who wants one surely can choose any method they like? They're equally optional, surely?
I think that if your hypothetical non-water-baptised Salvationist turned up to be baptised by the C of E vicar s/he would probably be guided by said vicar.
However, knowing Salvationists as I do I would guess that they would see their baptism as an act of witness to their salvation rather than a sacrament that conveys regenerative grace.
That's the reason that any Salvationists I know of who have 'been through the waters of baptism' do indeed gravitate towards that theology and 'turn up' at the Baptists or the Pentecostals.
Tangentally, I am genuinely confused at the recent posts about rebaptism - I thought that was heretical? People have been burned for less, surely!
[ 01. November 2013, 13:29: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Tangentally, I am genuinely confused at the recent posts about rebaptism - I thought that was heretical? People have been burned for less, surely!
It's not heretical if it's not a baptism.
Here's the script from Common Worship:
quote:
The president asks those affirming their faith
Have you been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?
I have.
The president asks the candidates
Are you ready with your own mouth and from your own heart to affirm your faith in Jesus Christ?
I am.
And then later:
quote:
The ministers and those who are to affirm their baptismal faith gather
at the baptismal font.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I've never heard of that - but hey, why would I have?
But one further question: what's the difference between that and confirnation?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
As far as I can see from the whole discussion here no Salvation Army meeting has a Eucharistic element.There is absolutely no bar on the participation in the Liturgy of the Word which forms an important part of the RC Mass.
Anyone,but anyone, can join in the prayers,listen to the Word of God as contained in sacred Scripture,listen to the words of the preacher who attempts to make clear the Gospel message and raise their mind and heart towards almighty God in the midst of an assembly of those who are trying to be God's people.Is this not also what happens at a Salvation Army meeting ?
Please look at it that way,Mudfrog ,instead of talking about being barred from reception of bread and wine.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I've never heard of that - but hey, why would I have?
But one further question: what's the difference between that and confirnation?
Confirmation requires a bishop and preparatory classes, and it's normally done by people who have been raised in the church.
Reaffirmation is geared towards people who have been away from the church for some time or lost faith and later returned, and can be done by a vicar.
I was baptized as an infant but raised in a very conservative believers only church. I was never baptized into the conservative church because I had a lot of issues with its teachings. I left Christianity behind entirely as a young adult and then many years later came back to it, through my local CofE parish, which happened to be a very vibrant evangelical one. I knew nothing about Anglicanism but as I'd had a valid baptism using their standards, I asked about conformation. After hearing my story, the vicar felt that reaffirmation was more suitable to give me time to learn more about Anglican faith and decide later if I wanted to be confirmed.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I could start another thread about confirmation and the Anglican church as it's one of those issues where I think it's a ritual in search of a theology ...
I've not been confirmed incidentally.
I can see what evangelical Anglicans are trying to assert by immersion accompanying a reaffirmation of vicarious baptismal promises but it looks - and flies - very close to believer's baptism - for all their protestations to the contrary.
Not that I have a problem with it - but it does beg a few questions.
At least, it does to my mind ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clemency
Shipmate
# 16173
|
Posted
Since I find this thread resurrected and rumbling on, and since, being ex-SA, it is a topic that once concerned me quite a bit, can I suggest that Mudfrog takes a long view - hops onto a passing asteroid one night and sees the whole thing from a distance, as it were (just stand a ladder upright at the bottom of he garden and jump for one as it goes past, it works for me...). What I see is something like this.
William Booth at first had no intention of starting a church; he had not been well treated when he was a Methodist, and he certainly ordered that SA buildings 'look nothing like churches'. But later on the way-that-the-world is forced the SA into becoming a denomination like everyone else, and thus, a church, of sorts. If SA members were free to join other churches, it would not be; they are not, so it is, and it has at last got round to calling itself one, or at least calling its corps (originally 'barracks') 'churches'. Now, all other churches, and certainly all the evangelical ones with which the SA would align itself, practise baptism and communion, in a variety of forms, and experience God's grace through them. Does a massive majority vote in the Body of Christ worldwide bear any weight with you? Why is the Army still missing out?
I guess Booth's original provisional organisation, coupled with his own over-reaction to perceived errors, resulted in a position which, like so many others in church history, soon became fossilised... God is in the business of dealing with dry bones, but this is stuff he would have to take a hammer and chisel to.
On a more specific note, are individual SA corps free to introduce communion if they wanted, as I have heard rumoured? I recall hearing that one radical officer (I could say who and where, but perhaps should not) at a N Midlands corps did this, I think in the 1970s, and bought a large silver chalice at corps expense...
--------------------
Who knows where the Time goes?
Posts: 90 | From: Northumberland, UK | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
...no doubt passsing it off as a particularly strangely designed euphonium...
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clemency:
On a more specific note, are individual SA corps free to introduce communion if they wanted, as I have heard rumoured? I recall hearing that one radical officer (I could say who and where, but perhaps should not) at a N Midlands corps did this, I think in the 1970s, and bought a large silver chalice at corps expense...
Newark by any chance?
And no, they're not.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clemency
Shipmate
# 16173
|
Posted
Yes, the very place. I gather he left the SA and went to the USA, and produced an album 'Star Wars of Darkness and Light' which I have somewhere in my mouldering vinyl collection.... He wrote some good songs notably 'Comfortable Pew' and (self-critically whilst in the SA) 'Toy Soldiers'.
--------------------
Who knows where the Time goes?
Posts: 90 | From: Northumberland, UK | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
