Posted                      

quote:

---

I'd be interested to know how you think you'd feel about the issue if they died the day before they were due to be baptised? I'm also interested in your explanation of how they're, according to your terms, not Christians now.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
The issue doesn't seem to be about one church accepting another church's baptism as valid. Raither its about accepting infant baptism as valid. A church that refused to accept a baptism as valid simply becuase it took place in another church would be deeply wrong. However not accepting infant baptism is a very different and justifable difference of theology. I am however concerned that your friend is getting baptised without understanding exactly why her infant baptism is not accepted as valid. I would expect any church to explain this as part of making sure a candidate understands the signifance and meaning of their baptism.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
So how about baptism in these churches?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
GreyFace:

quote:

---

I'd be interested to know how you think you'd feel about the issue if they died the day before they were due to be baptised? I'm also interested in your explanation of how they're, according to your terms, not Christians now.

---

I don't think I would worry about that (except the loss). I actually remember a sermon years and years ago which may have impacted on me. The minister was saying, with great emphasis, that God would in no way condemn children. I think there must have been people in his congregation who identified god with condemnation.

---

quote:

---

IMO, baptism does not produce "salvation" or make someone a "Christian". It's a public witness that they identify themself as a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Back to the OP - one of the minor reasons I would never have had my children sprinkled or immersed as babies was that it would not mess up any desire for them to be baptised after becoming christians.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
The youngest I have heard any evangelicals claim to have 'become a christian' is age 5, but that is very unusual (most are much older).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

And yes, we evangelicals don't believe our children are Christians until they make a profession for themselves.

---

quote:

---

I 'became a Christian' before I was 5.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
(This last one I'm not clear on, but I do remember a clergy fraternal at which the lovely, but decidedly pre-Vatican II, RC priest answered a question from someone who clearly took the first position above - that the important thing was being a Christian, not baptism, and I think was saying that not everybody who was baptised was a Christian - by saying that for all that Baptismal regeneration is real, if someone who had been baptised went to hell, they went as a baptised Christian.

I think this shocked the person he was talking to, but it did make it quite clear that for him, "Christian" wasn't synonymous with "saved".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

I think this shocked the person he was talking to, but it did make it quite clear that for him, "Christian" wasn't synonymous with "saved".

---

Well for me, being a Christian is synonymous with being 'saved'. I guess this is the typical evangelical position, which is why we find it hard to stomach things such as baptismal regeneration.

By the way, I'm not ignoring your earlier question addressed to me 'What is a Christian?', just hoping that instead of me fumbling for the right words, one of the more articulate evangelicals can try to explain our position to you. Custard? Gordon? Lep? Anyone?

[ 21. March 2005, 21:40: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]

--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website

Posted                          

quote:

---

I don't think that that is decidely pre-Vatican II.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Fulfilling such conditions is, at least now, widely held to be difficult but there is a respectable view in Catholic thought that if there is anyone in Hell, they would have to be baptised (in order to have any chance of full knowledge of the seriousness of the unrepented sin freely committed).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I might disagree with the understanding of baptism in the historic believers' baptism traditions, but I recognise that there is theology involved and that it does have a historical foundation (even if it a mere 400 years!).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Surely then Our Lord would have ordered the Apostles to be thoroughly sure they never baptised anyone?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Gwir y gair, onide?

---

quote:

---

"Strange place for pride to lurk - in houses built on the sand!"

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

IMO, baptism does not produce "salvation" or make someone a "Christian". It's a public witness that they identify themself as a Christian. It's up to us to decide and say that, if that's the vacabulary of our church or denomination.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
Believer's baptism is the oldest form of Christian baptism, with the baptism of infants coming many centuries later.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I'm sure Pelagius would be gratified to know he still has support in these Isles after all those years...

No baptism doesn't 'produce' salvation. God does that in Christ by the working of the Spirit. Baptism is the normative means by which it is covenanted, although, of course, salvation is not the sole preserve of the baptised (the Kingdom is not the Church.) As for making someone a Christian - the word means 'someone who is baptised' (compare 'christening'). That is what it has meant for most of the Church's history for most members of the Church. The fact that a relatively small number of (largely) Europeans and Americans since the 16th century have wanted to define Christianity in terms of what we do for God rather than of what God does for us (in baptism) is not a good reason to refrain from this use.

---

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
...No baptism doesn't 'produce' salvation. God does that in Christ by the working of the Spirit. Baptism is the normative means by which it is covenanted, although, of course, salvation is not the sole preserve of the baptised (the Kingdom is not the Church.) As for making someone a Christian - the word means 'someone who is baptised' (compare 'christening'). That is what it has meant for most of the Church's history for most members of the Church. The fact that a relatively small number of (largely) Europeans and Americans since the 16th century have wanted to define Christianity in terms of what we do for God rather than of what God does for us (in baptism) is not a good reason to refrain from this use.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

Gracie:
I would say that I was born a Christian - born into a Christian home in which the Christian faith surrounded me - well, I'd argue in utero. I was baptised as a very small infant, and Christ's people were always my people. I could have left, but never did. I'd say that I've always been a Christian. And yes, there have been many, many occasions on which I've publicly professed my faith - but I don't understand any of those as being anything to do with "becoming a Christian". My understanding is that I've always been a Christian.

Please understand that I'm not looking to deprecate anyone else's different understanding of what it means to "be" or "become" a Christian. I'm simply saying how it is with me.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

No baptism doesn't 'produce' salvation. God does that in Christ by the working of the Spirit. Baptism is the normative means by which it is covenanted, although, of course, salvation is not the sole preserve of the baptised (the Kingdom is not the Church.)

---

quote:

---

Believer's baptism is the oldest form of Christian baptism, with the baptism of infants coming many centuries later.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

IMO, baptism does not produce "salvation" or make someone a "Christian". It's a public witness that they identify themself as a Christian. It's up to us to decide and say that, if that's the vacabulary of our church or denomination.

---

I'm sure Pelagius would be gratified to know he still has support in these Isles after all those years...

---

quote:

---

To me saying that 'this is where I am now, this is generally how I got here and quite where I crossed the line between unbelief into belief is anyone's guess' is as close as I can get. I couldn't even name the year. So I don't neatly fit within any of the boxes.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Indeed. His support comes from those who believe an un-asked for work of ritual dispensed by the right church with the right formula (and NOT otherwise) brings one into the Christian family.

---

quote:

---

The evangelical position on "being a Christian" is AFAIK that one is brought into the kingdom of God by faith in Christ. This faith cannot be passed on to you by someone else...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. [Pelagius'] support comes from those who believe an un-asked for work of ritual dispensed by the right church with the right formula (and NOT otherwise) brings one into the Christian family.

---

quote:

---

I have to say the idea that the evangelical position is MORE Pelagian than the Catholic one is pretty much laughable.

---

quote:

---

The evangelical position on "being a Christian" is AFAIK that one is brought into the kingdom of God by faith in Christ. This faith cannot be passed on to you by someone else, nor can it be foisted on you by the decision of your family or the church hierarchy. Hence Believers Baptism.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I believe a good Calvinist would also say that one who has been predestined for the kingdom from the beginning of time, has been Christian from long before their birth.

---

quote:

---

I believe that faith, as a trusting response to Christ, is God's gift, and that it simply isn't possible to judge who has it and who hasn't.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I believe a good Calvinist would also say that one who has been predestined for the kingdom from the beginning of time, has been Christian from long before their birth. Your view of faith in this last quoted paragraph looks remarkably Arminian in character, Lep.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
That's definitely not the Pelagius I know! Quite seriously, I think that many evangelicals would be horrified to realise just how spiritually close they are to Pelagius, and to the terrible danger of turning faith into a work - "the right faith, taught by the right church, with the right formula".

---

Ah - but thats not a work, Psyduck. Thats an obligation (totally different, )

quote:

---

But I certainly believe that the human, psychological actuality of being brought up in the faith of a Christian family and church is that you're in it until you reject it - and that can be a bad thing as well as a good thing, in human and psychological terms.

Most of the evangelicals I know are warm, human people - but I just can't see how, on their account of faith, children and those incapable of a cognitive grasp of the faith (and I'm very clear that they are two different categories) can be saved.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe that faith as such saves. I believe that God saves, in Christ, and that saving faith is precisely believing that. Not believing that we believe it. And Baptism is about God's saving love and grace in Christ - not about faith in it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I might disagree with the understanding of baptism in the historic believers' baptism traditions, but I recognise that there is theology involved and that it does have a historical foundation (even if it is a mere 400 years!).

---

Sorry, I couldn't just let this lie. it's quite insulting really.

Believer's baptism is the oldest form of Christian baptism, with the baptism of infants coming many centuries later.

Formalised Baptist churches may be relatively recent in the history of the church, but those who have held to the biblical pattern of baptising believers have been around for 2000 years.

---

quote:

---

Speaking personally, I have always had a problem with 'child' christian commitments. This is basically because before you get to a certain age (which is different for each individual) it is impossible to tell a) how much understanding is attached to the words you are saying and b) how much influence significant others have had on you. Until a child can decide rationally and separate their beliefs from the accepted (normally parential) beliefs, I would argue that such statements are largely worthless.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

IME you believe wrongly about Calvinists. Nearly all I have met would not say that someone has been a Christian from the time they were predestined. Rather that regeneration and faith come at the time of salvation, and that "being saved" and "becoming a Christian" are to be equated. In which order regeneration and faith come depends on how Calvinist you are.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Hence if one believes that we are saved from the beginning of time and at the same time that baptism is a sign of faith, then it is vitally important to only only baptise those who are known to be saved.

---

quote:

---

To baptise those who may or may not in the future be shown to be saved makes a nonsense of it (I think they would argue).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Hence if one believes that we are saved from the beginning of time and at the same time that baptism is a sign of faith, then it is vitally important to only only baptise those who are known to be saved.

---

You're absolutely right - and doesn't that show how ridiculously distorted an argument that is?

At a synod in Denbigh in I think 1812, a bunch of hypercalvinist Methodists were going a mile a minute on this general theme, and one of them (I can't remember who) came away with the gem that if he knew who in his congregation was saved, he'd only preach to them! The basis of course was limited atonement.

As it happened, Robert ap Gwilym Ddu, the poetic genius, was asked about this, and off the top of his head produced this englyn (a poetic form which is several million times harder to do than a haiku!)

Paham y gwneir cam a'r cymod - a'r iawn
A' rinwedd dros bechod?
Dywedwch faint y Duwdod -
'Run faint iw'r Iawn i fod.

Roughly:

Why is the Covenant wronged - and the Atonement,
And its power (virtue) over sin?
Tell me how big God is -
That's how big the Atonement should be.

What he was militating against was this fusion of Calvinism and evangelicalismwhich makes God as much of a prisoner of the Decrees as the rest of us. Seventeenth-century Calvinism is a scholastic desert, and late eighteenth-century evangelical Calvinism is a theological and human Chernobyl. There's only one place to go if you want a Reformed faith that's any use, and that's teh sixteenth century.

The Scottish Reformation Fathers believed that Baptism, like Communion, was a 'converting ordinance" It had the power to change lives, because God's Word was in it, and God's Word is Christ.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posted                          

quote:

---

iw'r

---

quote:

---

yw'r

---

of course!

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
Well many Evangelicals do not see Baptism as a Sacrament: not all, mind you.

---

I think anyone who uses the word 'sacrament' at all will admit that baptism is one of them. The standard reformed account is of two 'gospel' sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:


What he was militating against was this fusion of Calvinism and evangelicalismwhich makes God as much of a prisoner of the Decrees as the rest of us. Seventeenth-century Calvinism is a scholastic desert, and late eighteenth-century evangelical Calvinism is a theological and human Chernobyl. There's only one place to go if you want a Reformed faith that's any use, and that's teh sixteenth century.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

...I'm reinforced in my own conviction that you can't be a Calvinist and an evangelical, or a Calvinist and a Baptist, without the kinds of contradictions that mean that you are only the one when you stop being the other momentarily. Specifically, I don't believe that the doctrine of grace implicit in believers' baptism is compatible with a Reformed position.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Is it that the one baptism (as in one Lord, one faith, one baptism) mentioned in the Bible is the baptism by the Holy Spirit at conversion (for you were all baptised by the one Spirit into the one Body)?

---

That's it!

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posted                          

quote:

---

A' rinwedd should presumably have been A'i rinwedd?

---

quote:

---

That's pretty rude.

---

quote:

---

But aside from that you seem to be saying Calvinism=Universalism. I doubt Calvin would have gone for that.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

you can't be a Calvinist and an evangelical, or a Calvinist and a Baptist

---

Oh dear you've just written off my entire denomination


--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
From Psyduck

quote:

---

you can't be a Calvinist and an evangelical, or a Calvinist and a Baptist

---

Oh dear you've just written off my entire denomination

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
From Psyduck

quote:

---

you can't be a Calvinist and an evangelical, or a Calvinist and a Baptist

---

Oh dear you've just written off my entire denomination

---

I don't want to disagree with your specialist knowledge G-r, but I understood that the Grace Baptists took great pride in not being a denomination....

C

---

yes you are right cheesy. It was a lazy use of language.


--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website