|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Validity of baptism from other churches?
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Tradition is not considered a valid arguement by most of us who practice BB.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sorry- just catching up on stuff; please don't let me spoil the flow of the thread, but for those who addressed things to me previously:
GreyFace: quote:
Psyduck, could you explain how being baptised, or not being baptised, is viewed in Reformed thought? Does it make any difference? This is the big problem for me with any form of Calvinism - nothing anybody does actually matters ultimately.
In a sense, that's the kind of understanding that some species of Calvinism do seem to embrace,a nd I hope Gracie won't mind me quoting her here: quote:
The problem I see with infant baptism from a Calvinistic point of view (though of course, I realise that Calvin himself taught infant baptism) is that if baptism itself changes one's status before God, it is no longer God who is at work for our salvation.
I think that this is a confusion. Essentially you're separating baptism from God. The Church of Scotland's new Book of Common Order makes it clear, I think, what the mainstream Reformed position is: "In baptism it is Christ himself who baptises us."
The difficulty is with those species of Calvinism which understand everything so much in terms of the Eternal Decrees that they crush the meaning out of everything else. In other words, from that perspective, the whole of world history is really a waste of time, and if God could have sorted the Atonement out in some other way than by an historic crucifixion, he could basically have cut to the chase, and created a heavenful of elect and a hellful of reprobate. But of course there is an enormous amount else in this historic existence of ours, and much of it is mystery. And much of it is good and gracious and wonderful. In fact, the failure to acknowledge mystery, and the arrogant claim to know the mind of God, is what vitiates some of the worst of Calvinism. That and fear, which is perhaps what always brings out the worst in people, and theology.
My reading of the long quote from the Westminster Confession above presents a Calvinism in which it is indeed baptism which confers grace - maybe, from the God's eye view at the end of all things it can be said that it only conferred grace there and then on the people who were to have grace conferred on them anyway, but the point is that from that perspective too, it did confer grace there and then. From our human perspective here and now, it confers grace, and I think that GreyFace is absolutely right in the following, even from a Calvinist point of view. quote:
So, as an infant, we don't have the power to reject the gift. As an adult, as we become increasingly self-possessed, we gain the power to refuse grace and also the power to refuse baptism by refusing to turn up. There's a difference here - it's not that a child can't give consent, but rather that an adult can refuse by turning away from God, if you like.
This is sooo redolent of Barth on 'classical election' - that in Christ we are all, as a 'classis' - a group, the whole human race - elected to salvation, just as in Adam "all died" - and that this alone creates the possibility that we might reject salvation.
"How is baptism viewed in Reformed thought?" Easy.
It's terribly, terrobly important. But not absolutely necessary to salvation. But terribly, terribly important.
quote:
Baptism is the sign of dying to sin, and rising to new life in Christ.
By water and the Holy Spirit Christ claims us as his own, washes us from sin, and sets us free from the power of death.
Here we know that we are made one with Christ, crucified and risen, members of his body, called to share his ministry in the world. In this sacrament the love of God is offered to each one of us. Though we cannot understand or explain it, we are called to accept that love with the openness and trust of a child. (C of S BCO 1994 emph mine. )
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
Perhaps we are constantly misunderstadning each other, in which case we may have to abandon this in avoidance of ulcers and migraines, but are you suggesting that in the practice of infant baptism, the infant is a believer?
A potential one, but that's not my point.
...
But, for those who do BB, it is the main point. As baptism is not necessary for salvation, then IB is neither necessary nor valid.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Tradition is not considered a valid arguement by most of us who practice BB.
I understand that perfectly well but BOB (all christian communities that practice baptism seem to practice the Baptism of Believers) is itself a tradition (and a pretty late one at that).
You seem to appeal to the absence of a witness to infant baptism (based on a highly restrictive and, I'd contend, faulty exegesis) as positive evidence that is wrong. Since the Canon of Scripture wasn't fixed by the time the practice of infant baptism had become established within the Church, had the Holy Spirit wanted to stop it, is it not at least likely that he would - have ensured some scriptural condemnation; and
- have taken some action earlier than 16th century to correct such an important abuse.
I would also suggest that there is an error of logic in the argument you make: the absence of evidence (which you contend and I would dispute) is not the same as the evidence of absence; the absence of scriptural evidence is not evidence that a practice is not permitted (unless you want to go down an amish like reductio in absurdum).
[ 23. March 2005, 17:26: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
You haven't addressed the argument about households, have you? Nothing suggests to me that a cow would be considered a member of the household. I don't know whether children were for certain, but if I had to guess I'd say they were.
Yes i have.
There are two that i remember recorded in Acts (if i've missed some others, then please someone let us know). The households of Cornelius and the Phillipian jailer. In the accounts of both of these it is explicit that it is the believers who are baptised. If you want to suggest that infants were too then you are arguing against the record.
Regards
M
30 [the jailer] then brought them out and asked, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 They replied, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved— you and your household. 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptised.
Strictly, this says that if the Jailer believes, he and his whole household will be saved.
It goes on to say that they preached to the whole family, who were then baptised. It is not stated how many if any came to faith before baptism -- and indeed such a statement would have been meaningless, since slaves and dependents were automatically included with a master's conversion.
One can assume that -- unlike every other audience Paul addressed of which we have any evidence -- everyone who heard him was converted, but the scripture doesn't say that.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Psyduck:
quote:
My reading of the long quote from the Westminster Confession above presents a Calvinism in which it is indeed baptism which confers grace - maybe, from the God's eye view at the end of all things it can be said that it only conferred grace there and then on the people who were to have grace conferred on them anyway, but the point is that from that perspective too, it did confer grace there and then.
But doesn't grace appear as God looking out for us, longing for us, loving us, freeing us from sin and pain, rebirthing us? isn't baptism just a symbol of that grace?
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I'm very drawn to the insight of the great French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, who says that we are all "born into language". Long before we're born, our arrival is anticipated, by family, friends, and especially parents, who talk about us, imagine what sex we're going to be, what we'll do when we grow up, who we'll look like, what kind of person we'll be, etc. etc. On all sorts of levels we absorb this, even maybe in utero. I think it's absurd, anyway, to think in terms of us all as isolated atomic units of decision and thought, and I don't think that faith makes sense in such a context.
But Lacan's notion of our being born into language, language which constructs us as selves before ever we are born, makes a lot more sense.
I think that that's one sense in which people could be said to be "born Christian".
It's by no means an unambiguously good thing, of course. A huge part of Lacan's theory is the "mirror stage", that moment at about 6 months when the mother (usually) holds the child up to a mirror, and says "Look, baby! That's you!" And all these bits and pieces of selfhood that have been floating around in the air suddenly come together as a self, and the child is told "That's you!"
Of course, it's not. It's an image. The image is a reversal of the child's image, a presentation of a self to it as its own self. And very often there's an immense work of transcending this selfhood to be done as life unfolds.
But it does seem to me to be highly artificial to suggest that a child is just a "nothing" until magically it becomes adult enough to decide for itself. A large part of growing up is sorting through the selfhoods that are imposed on us. I would have thought that one crucial approach to baptism is that it identifies us with the self we don't perhaps know - that nobody has known, only God. Hence:
quote:
Will you come and follow me if I but call your name?
Will you go where you don’t know and never be the same?
Will you let my love be shown, will you let my name be known,
Will you let my life be grown in you and you in me?
Will you leave yourself behind if I but call your name...?
Will you love the "you" you hide if I but call your name?
Will you quell the fear inside and never be the same?
That seems to me to be a lifelong thing; I'd guess that the amputation of childhood from the process of being a Christian would be a very dangerous thing - even if not to might be very painful indeed, sometimes.
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
You haven't addressed the argument about households, have you? Nothing suggests to me that a cow would be considered a member of the household. I don't know whether children were for certain, but if I had to guess I'd say they were.
Yes i have.
There are two that i remember recorded in Acts (if i've missed some others, then please someone let us know). The households of Cornelius and the Phillipian jailer. In the accounts of both of these it is explicit that it is the believers who are baptised. If you want to suggest that infants were too then you are arguing against the record.
There is a third, the household of Stephanus (1Cor1:16). What (possibly) makes this one more interesting is that the members of this same household are described in 1Cor16:15 as, "the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints".
Presumably this latter description can only be applied to non-infants (the infants aren't going to be of service to anyone).
So, depending on one's predisposition, one can take this as further evidence
- of the baptism of infants (as members of a household), but I suggest that this is difficult in this case,
- of the baptism only of non-infants (if the second use of household excludes infants then it is more likely that the first excludes them as well
- that the meaning of "household" depends on context and the reader would be expected to understand the meaning intended, but I'm not sure where that gets us
[ 23. March 2005, 20:19: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Different author to Acts of course so we can't be sure of the precise nuance - but I don't think it says a great deal, in that, if household meant family including children and slaves, the later reference works by thinking of the family as a unit.
So certainly in English, context could work this way:
His family was innoculated against measles (implies each member)
His family supports Oxfam in various ways (one gives money, another works in a shop, one of the kids wears a Make Povery History bracelet, and the two babies don't do anything yet - the family as a whole supports Oxfam)
I would say baptism falls into the first category, but I would, wouldn't I?
In short, I'm convinced the Biblical evidence alone is inconclusive, which is all I'm actually arguing here.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
As others have asked where is the evidence that the baptism of infants came centuries later? The whole households in Acts point towards infant baptism IMO. Even if, as I have heard some evangelicals claim, there were no infants in those households,*
I'm genuinely struggling to think of other examples of households being baptised then the two i mention - Cornelius and the Phillipian Jailer. It's not a case of evangelicals claiming, but the bible being clear in these two instances, that it is those who responded to the gospel who were baptised.
If there are other examples in Acts that clearly indicate differently, and i have forgotten them, please fogive me a genuine mistake.
Warm regards
M
Others have taken you up on the instances of households in Acts. AFAICT, what people argue is the significance of these examples depends entirely on their tradition!
I note however that you did not take me up on the other points in my post although you repeated the claim that:
quote:
It is a practice that devloped later (no-one knows for sure, but the evidence seems to indicate the practice began more than 200 years later) probably in response to a more devloped theology of original sin.
in response to GreyFace. The other point about the theology behind believers' only baptism came up in your discussion with him too.
I repeat the rest of my post below.
quote:
Secondly, St Polycarp who talked of having served the Lord for fourscore and six years (i.e 86) is often taken as evidence for infant baptism in the apostolic age.
I was also not talking about the pratice of baptising adults (which has always happened)** but of the theology of baptism held by believers' only baptists.
Og: Thread Killer wrote:
quote:
Tradition is not considered a valid arguement by most of us who practice BB.
No, but if you're arguing about when a practice such as the baptism of children developed then one has to engage with the Church Fathers because their writings are the evidence for that period (during which the Canon of the NT was developing)
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Different author to Acts of course
Sorry (to you and Matrix). I missed the reference specifically to Acts.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I repeat the rest of my post below.
Secondly, St Polycarp who talked of having served the Lord for fourscore and six years (i.e 86) is often taken as evidence for infant baptism in the apostolic age.
You seriously want to argue for infant baptism on the basis that some people read into this statement that Polycarp was infant baptised?
And you want to hold that up as a counter to specific discriptions in scripture of times when belivers alone were baptised?
I think i need you to clarify what you'd like me to respond to. Thanks.
Regards
M
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I repeat the rest of my post below.
Secondly, St Polycarp who talked of having served the Lord for fourscore and six years (i.e 86) is often taken as evidence for infant baptism in the apostolic age.
You seriously want to argue for infant baptism on the basis that some people read into this statement that Polycarp was infant baptised?
And you want to hold that up as a counter to specific discriptions in scripture of times when belivers alone were baptised?
I think i need you to clarify what you'd like me to respond to. Thanks.
I want you to respond to this as possible evidence against your claim that `infant baptism didn't develop for centuries'. I want you to try and provide some evidence for that claim. Rather than ignoring my citing of Polycarp as you did in responding to my post originally -- now at least you have given a reason why you don't accept that claim -- and merely restating your opinion that infant baptism didn't start until 'some centuries' after the birth of the Church. Trisagion brought this up again at the bottom of the last page.
Yes, Polycarp isn't conclusive proof -- he could have been 100 when he died giving an age of 14 for his baptism which would satisfy believers only types, but people have pointed to him as a possible case in point. It is not the basis of my argument for why it is ok to baptise children in Christian households (which rests on various different things, like my understanding of God, the Bible, my own experience, Church teaching, the sacraments, grace and many other things beside) but I brought it up to counter something you had said about infant baptism being late.
The evidence is not as clear cut as either of us would like it too be. We interpret the silence differently though on the basis of what our tradition teaches about baptism.
Others have said more or less what I want to say about the fact that adults are clearly baptised in scripture. Adults have always been baptised no-one is arguing about this. We are disputing whether scripture has evidence for people being believed without the explicit faith commitment demanded by BOBs.
Also, my original point (which started this subthread) was that the theology of baptism as held in BOB Churches only goes back 400 years. I stand by that point and do not think that discussing the practice of baptism in the NT comes close to answering it. Yes, those are the arguments which were used 400 years and since in the discussion of BOB versus omnibaptism, but that doesn't address the point that from some point (I would argue from about the second generation of Christians, you would put it about some centuires later) until the 1500s the practice of the Church was to baptise infants. That's what I meant by the point about that tradition going back a 'mere 400 years'. You have twice not addressed this point (and you've misunderstood GreyFace when he's been making a similar point).
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Carys,
I don't think that believers' baptism has always gone on forever. One reason for infant baptism to be deemed esential was the teaching/belief that babies didn't go to heaven when they died unles they were baptised - they were buried outside churchyards and sent to limbo. Now, if that was around and I had no teaching generally, just that superstition, no literacy, no understanding of Latin, Greek or Hebrew, I would definitely have my babies instantly baptised.
However, when people begin to understand things for themselves, maybe have serious teaching, then they may go back to old ways of doing things because they realise they are superior, more theologically correct in their view.
Just like we now realise that women and men are equal and able to work as whatever in the church. We messed up over centuries, but back at the beginning, women had positions of authority and the teaching and examples given from the bible allow us to understand in the 21st century that women can do what was forbidden them for centuries.
Going back to biblical ideas and teaching is a "tradition" of some churches.
Also, because there is no specific mention of babies being baptised, we can't assume they were. That is as clear as anything.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
But Daisymay, what I can't for the life of me see is that if baptism began as an adult act of self-dedication to God, a manifestation of the faith of the person coming forward to receive it, how did it ever get transformed into a sacrament of grace, and especially one that you could apply to infants?
If believers' baptism, with the very clearly demarcated meaning that BB advocates say that it has, was the scriptural norm, and the universal practice of the church for several centuries, how on earth did such a thoroughly adult rite ever become so transformed?
It isn't just that you have to account for the whole weight of tradition, construed not as "tradition" in the religious sense, but as pretty substantial historical evidence; you also have to ask what the meaning of the New Testament evidence is. Is baptism an assertion of something by the baptizand? Or is it something given to the person?
I did a very simple and easily repeated thing. I went to the Michigan University Online RSV and selected "Simple Searches" - the top option on the page. I put in "bapt" and got 107 hits. I've looked at them several times now, and I still find myself concluding (well, maybe I would!) that none of the baptismal references that are not about John the Baptist are more about how and why the person being baptized comes, than they are about that person receiving something from God.
I honestly can't see how it's possible to say that the New Testament understanding even of adult baptism is about our faith, and not God's gift.
But within those readings, I think it's absolutely impossible to say that about Paul's understanding of baptism.
And even John's baptism - it seems to me that the understanding there is that people are to come and take advantage of an opportunity and God-given mechanism for being washed clean of their sins. It seems to me that the background of thought has far more in common with the psychological mechanisms of the Jewish sacrificial system than sixteenth-century radical Protestantism.
It honestly seems to me that the NT understanding of baptism is at least incipiently sacramental everywhere, which is the necessary precondition for the transfer of the rite from adults to infants. And the truth is that if baptism is more about what God gives than about our response to it, why shouldn't it?
As Carys has pointed out, the historical evidence for infant baptism is at least adequate (I'd say much better than that!) all the way back to the sub-apostolic period - I'd say all the way back into the New Testament. But even if people can't accept that, if NT baptism is about what God gives, then it's very hard to see on what grounds you could resist the eventual application of baptism to infants - and sooner rather than later.
It would have happened anyway, and not because of "external" considerations like doctrines of Original Sin, or a sacramental system like Augustine's that can't deal with unbaptised faith. It would happen because of the internal logic of baptism. And that's certainly there in the NT.
The point I'm making here is that it's necessary for proponents of Biblical believers' baptism to do considerably more than decisively dismiss the "household" passages - which I don't think can be done with any degree of historical or sociological plausibility anyway. They also have to demonstrate that baptism in the New Testament means the response of faith and not the gift of God, and I just don't see how that can be done. (Maybe this is a kerygmania topic!)
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Now, if that was around and I had no teaching generally, just that superstition, no literacy, no understanding of Latin, Greek or Hebrew, I would definitely have my babies instantly baptised.
However, when people begin to understand things for themselves, maybe have serious teaching, then they may go back to old ways of doing things because they realise they are superior, more theologically correct in their view.
Just like we now realise that women and men are equal and able to work as whatever in the church. We messed up over centuries, but back at the beginning, women had positions of authority and the teaching and examples given from the bible allow us to understand in the 21st century that women can do what was forbidden them for centuries.
Nice to see the old canard being rolled out to justify 16th century innovations. Historical garbage but comforting nonetheless...well to some.
The Tradition of those Churches who can claim to have been around since the time of the Apostles is that infants have always been baptised. There is not one shred of evidence, historical, traditional or scriptural, that this is not so. What evidence there is supports this view. Those Churches also teach (and, afaik, have always taught) that in baptism God works to bring us into a new relationship with Him, that of his adopted sons and daughters. If I believed that, be I a smyrnian parent, a mother in Charlemagne's empire, a saxon peasant in the 16th century or a space age "new-man", I'd want my baby baptised and, thanks be to God, the Church has always recognised this desire as legitimate.
I have no problem with baptising believers, but the idea that it is the only proper form of baptism relies on faulty exegesis, lousy history and a concept of baptism built on a reaction to medieval sacramental abuses. By all means hold the BOB view, if you want, but at least recognise its paternity.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Nice to see the old canard being rolled out to justify 16th century innovations. Historical garbage but comforting nonetheless...well to some.
The Tradition of those Churches who can claim to have been around since the time of the Apostles is that infants have always been baptised. There is not one shred of evidence, historical, traditional or scriptural, that this is not so. What evidence there is supports this view. Those Churches also teach (and, afaik, have always taught) that in baptism God works to bring us into a new relationship with Him, that of his adopted sons and daughters. If I believed that, be I a smyrnian parent, a mother in Charlemagne's empire, a saxon peasant in the 16th century or a space age "new-man", I'd want my baby baptised and, thanks be to God, the Church has always recognised this desire as legitimate.
I have no problem with baptising believers, but the idea that it is the only proper form of baptism relies on faulty exegesis, lousy history and a concept of baptism built on a reaction to medieval sacramental abuses. By all means hold the BOB view, if you want, but at least recognise its paternity.
Ow come on. You are going to justify behaviour on the basis that you've always done it (not that you can actually prove it either way)?
What really gets to me is that both sides seem to delight in calling each other names.
Trisagion - the baptists think you got it wrong for 1500 years. What is there not to understand about that? It is not a case of paternity or history or anything else. It is a difference in theology.
Please everyone stop trying to take the moral and intellectual high ground and at least try to understand that the thought processes behind the beliefs are quite different. Otherwise this will quickly become a pointless discussion and/or a dead horse.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Dear God! I'm Trisagion's Protestant sockpuppet!
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Cheesy - this is Purgatory. If you have a counter-argument, bring it on. quote:
What really gets to me is that both sides seem to delight in calling each other names.
Where, precisely? That's a very serious allegation, and I think you should substantiate it. quote:
Ow come on. You are going to justify behaviour on the basis that you've always done it (not that you can actually prove it either way)?
Several posters have adduced strong historical arguments, which you are simply dismissing - well no, actually, as in that last quote you are misrepresenting the nature and cogency of those arguments. You are simply asserting. In fact you now seem to be telling people to shut up, because you disagree with them. quote:
Trisagion - the baptists think you got it wrong for 1500 years. What is there not to understand about that? It is not a case of paternity or history or anything else. It is a difference in theology.
Puts me in mind of that quote '"Shut up, he explained...' OK, gloves off, I don't think the Baptist position is Biblical. Talk to me about it if you like, 'cos I'm a Protestant paedobaptist and proud of it. quote:
Please everyone stop trying to take the moral and intellectual high ground and at least try to understand that the thought processes behind the beliefs are quite different.
No they're not. We're talking about baptism, the New Testament, and Christian history. The only significant non-common factor is attitude to tradition. Everything else is a matter of interpretation of the same thing, viz. baptism. In any case, it's totally unacceptable to come on to a Purg. thread and say that we all have to stop arguing about something that - the lack of hostly intervntion would strongly suggest - is a perfectly sensible and honourably conducted debate.
quote:
Otherwise this will quickly become a pointless discussion and/or a dead horse.
Why do people say this when they don't like the way the balance of debate is moving? I think we're still covering new ground.
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
You are going to justify behaviour on the basis that you've always done it (not that you can actually prove it either way)?
That's right. That is a consequence of the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. Prove it either way...there is no doubt at all that it was a practice by the time of Origen and had become so with no theological controversy in an age of theological controversy. In any event, you couldn't have got to the theology of baptism expressed by Cyprian of Carthage or Augustine of Hippo if you'd started from a BOB position - at least not without a theological row that would have made Arianism look pretty tame.
quote:
What really gets to me is that both sides seem to delight in calling each other names.
There is no delight in name calling and that isn't what is going on. What is going on is a "wake up and smell the coffee" call for those who believe in BOB to admit that their belief, true or false, rests not on scriptural or apostolic Church foundations but on the preoccupations of certain 16th century people. That, in itself, is not name calling: it is a simple statement, the truth of which can be argued about but the evidence for which seems overwhelming. Denying the baptism of others is name-calling - the name being called is "not baptised". The consequences of that range from irrelevant to not saved.
quote:
Trisagion - the baptists think you got it wrong for 1500 years. What is there not to understand about that? It is not a case of paternity or history or anything else. It is a difference in theology.
I am quite capable of working that out for myself, thank you. Doesn't it strike you as odd that a God who would become Man and suffer and die for us on the Cross, who rose again and sent the Holy Spirit upon his Apostles with grandiose promises, would forget His promises for 1500 years or so, until popping up in a couple of european cities in the middle of an intellectual revolution tying salvation to an idea that had never been canvassed before? It doesn't just strike me as odd, it strike me as perverse.
quote:
Please everyone stop trying to take the moral and intellectual high ground and at least try to understand that the thought processes behind the beliefs are quite different. Otherwise this will quickly become a pointless discussion and/or a dead horse.
C
Cheesy, taking the moral high ground is inevitable. We are talking about salvation. What could be more important. Either my children are baptised and brought into a new relationship (by God) with God or they are not. That is, for me, a pretty important question. Whether the discussion become a Dead Horse or not is entirely unimportant set against that. Patronising pleas to see the other point of view are as unhelpful as name-calling. I understand entirely the thought process behind the BOB position. I just think that it is entirely wrong and have stated my reasons for thinking so. The BOB posters have reciprocated. What's wrong with that.
[ 24. March 2005, 07:54: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, let us examine the biblical evidence, shall we?
How about I start the ball rolling and then others can chip in with their own understanding of the passages?
Again, the historical aspects are irrelevant to most evangelicals. You can argue them if you like, but I have no detailed knowledge pre-reformation, and my post-reformation knowledge is strongly influenced by baptist-evangelical thinking.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
OK, but I basically said my say on this above, at 0707hrs. I do wonder if it might be more appropriate to do this in Kerygmania, but I'll happily go with the consensus - and the hostly view!
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The Tradition of those Churches who can claim to have been around since the time of the Apostles is that infants have always been baptised.
Oh Trisagion. The claim that a church has been round since the time of the apostles reall means nothing to me. I am fed up to the back teeth of churches claiming to be doing thing the way that the apostles did them without a shred of Scriptural evidence to prove it. And that's not just a Catholic/Orthodox thing, but the spurious restorationist theologies as well.
Psyduck - if you believe baptism is JUST something done by God for people and thus must be done to helpless infants - do you ever baptise believers who are able to choose whether to be baptised or not? And if so, why?
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Leprechaun: quote:
Psyduck - if you believe baptism is JUST something done by God for people and thus must be done to helpless infants - do you ever baptise believers who are able to choose whether to be baptised or not? And if so, why?
Because they have come to a point in their lives when they are overwhelmed with the desire and need to accept what God offers in baptism, which, according to our baptismal service is summed up like this: quote:
Baptism is the sign of dying to sin, and rising to new life in Christ.
By water and the Holy Spirit Christ claims us as his own, washes us from sin, and sets us free from the power of death.
Here we know that we are made one with Christ, crucified and risen, members of his body, called to share his ministry in the world. In this sacrament the love of God is offered to each one of us. Though we cannot understand or explain it, we are called to accept that love with the openness and trust of a child. (C of S BCO 1994 emph mine. )
I baptise them because they come asking for what God gives.
But I still don't understand why you asked the question, or what you meant by it. It sounded as though you thought I could only be true to my theology of grace by mugging people and baptizing them under duress! (I don't, by the way...)
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Leprechaun: quote:
I am fed up to the back teeth of churches claiming to be doing thing the way that the apostles did them without a shred of Scriptural evidence to prove it.
Me too! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Gospels:
John baptises confessed sinners.
John baptises Jesus.
Both adults, both following a confession (though it is not entirely clear -at least from the passage - why Jesus needed to be baptised).
Matthew 28:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Fairly clear, I would argue, that the order was to make disciples and then baptise them.
Mark 16:
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned
Not sure that this fits neatly into either camp. But still the order is implied - belief, baptism, saved.
Acts 2:
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Same order - repentance then be baptised.
Acts 8:
Same sort of thing with Simon and the Eunuch
Acts 16:
Baptism of the whole household. No mention of children, however.
I'd argue this is ambiguous.
Acts 22:
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.
Active - go, rise and be baptised.
1 Cor 1:
Paul talking about who he has baptised and problems resulting from it.
Not sure this is supportive of either position.
I Cor 12: We are all baptised into one body.
Might be supportive of the infant baptism argument.
1 Cor 15:
Don't understand the passage.
Gal 3:
Active again - you were baptised and have put on Christ. ISTM that this is nonsensical if someone has been baptised whilst still in ignorance.
Ephesians 4:
One baptism, not clear which or what.
1 Pet 3: Possibly more supportive of Psyduck's position.
So, to set my stall.
The biblical precident is patchy. It strikes me that most of the time it is assumed that everyone knows what is being talked about.
The norm, I would argue, is for adult baptism. It is clear to my mind that one believes, confesses and is baptised. The public acclamation of belief is necessary, otherwise why did Jesus not just go around baptising everyone? John was at the lake, but he only baptised those who came and confessed. There is no hint of a universal baptism.
There is no direct evidence that anyone is baptised who has not first made a statement of faith.
Regarding infant baptism, I would argue that it is what you make of it. So if you want to take the promises that someone has made on your behalf then all well and good.
On the other hand, baptising random children makes a mockery of the gospel, which calls for individuals to repent and change their ways.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
But I still don't understand why you asked the question, or what you meant by it. It sounded as though you thought I could only be true to my theology of grace by mugging people and baptizing them under duress! (I don't, by the way...)
I'm glad. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I asked because it seems to be a rather elastic theology of baptism - if someone is not capable of making a decision then you (the church/the parents) decide for them but if they can then it becomes a sign of them asking something from God. Which is, after all, simply the Baptist position.
I think your theology only works if it is saying at the very least, it is better to be baptised as a child, and it actually, ISTM, fits rather uncomfortably with someone becoming a Christian from a non-Christian background. Which is a weird, because ISTM that in the NT that was exactly what baptism was supposed to signify in the first place.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
So in other words, you're just ignoring my post of 0707hrs.
I note:
a) I'd dealt with John's baptism pretty fully there.
b) You take the separation of repentance and Baptism as meaning that the two are not separate. You take "repentance precedes baptism" as meaning "baptism=repentance". That's just incoherent.
c) quote:
Acts 22:
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.
Active - go, rise and be baptised.
Active apart from the verb! I'll look it up and parse it later. But it seems that this is akin to Leprechaun's assumption above, that even getting yourself to church to be baptized, walking to the font (or baptistry) any active human component at all, somehow destroys the sacramental understanding. (I think you could argue a lot from the voice of the verb!)
d) All the Pauline passages are at least incipiently sacramental. Here they are:
quote:
Rom.6
[3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
[4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
1Cor.1
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Cor.10
[2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
1Cor.12
[13] For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
1Cor.15
[29] Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
Gal.3
[27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ
Likewise Ephesians and Colossians: quote:
Eph.4
[5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Col.2
[12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
and I Peter 3 is one source of the Noah typology of the "Flood Prayer" which is part of the baptismal rite, so I think we can take it as supporting a sacramental interpretation.
Basically I'd say you have pretty much the whole NT against a believers' baptism position, even if the "households" only included adults - some of these would inevitably have been adults who would have had no say. And they were baptized as a group. They took their identity from the "household", and that identity was now Christian.
As I say, you don't have to prove that the NT encompasses the baptism of children to be able to say that it doesn't support believers' baptism. But if it doesn't support believers' baptism, what's the Biblical objection to baptizing children?
Belivers' baptism is connected with a view of what it meant to be a human subject that began to become salient in the sixteenth century. There's all sorts of evidence that it's now beginning to fade away. We are all interconnected, and our lives are all bound together. I think we may be considerably closer to the ethos of the NT for the passing of the modern subject.
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Belivers' baptism is connected with a view of what it meant to be a human subject that began to become salient in the sixteenth century. There's all sorts of evidence that it's now beginning to fade away. We are all interconnected, and our lives are all bound together. I think we may be considerably closer to the ethos of the NT for the passing of the modern subject.
That's funny, I was just thinking quite the opposite: that today we have a much more developed sense of personal identity as opposed to a corporate one, and that believer's baptism makes more sense in this context.
I've heard it said more than once that believer-baptising evangelicals stood to gain from post-modern culture with its emphasis on the value of personal choice.
I find the historical perspectives outlined above interesting and challenging. ISTM that the emergence of the church as an institution (ibid...) could be enough to explain the rise of infant baptism within one generation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
So in other words, you're just ignoring my post of 0707hrs.
I note:
a) I'd dealt with John's baptism pretty fully there.
b) You take the separation of repentance and Baptism as meaning that the two are not separate. You take "repentance precedes baptism" as meaning "baptism=repentance". That's just incoherent.
Nope, I didn't ignore it. I think you are wrong. John's baptism is the same as all the other baptisms in the NT. Same pattern, same thing.
No, I don't take baptism=repentance. I take baptism to be an act of the repentant person.
quote:
c) quote:
Acts 22:
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.
Active - go, rise and be baptised.
Active apart from the verb! I'll look it up and parse it later. But it seems that this is akin to Leprechaun's assumption above, that even getting yourself to church to be baptized, walking to the font (or baptistry) any active human component at all, somehow destroys the sacramental understanding. (I think you could argue a lot from the voice of the verb!)
As I said before I don't really understand the sacrimental aspect of baptism. Therefore I'm afraid your comments mean nothing to me.
quote:
d) All the Pauline passages are at least incipiently sacramental. Here they are:
quote:
Rom.6
[3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
[4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
1Cor.1
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Cor.10
[2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
1Cor.12
[13] For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
1Cor.15
[29] Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
Gal.3
[27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ
Likewise Ephesians and Colossians: quote:
Eph.4
[5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Col.2
[12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
and I Peter 3 is one source of the Noah typology of the "Flood Prayer" which is part of the baptismal rite, so I think we can take it as supporting a sacramental interpretation.
On the contrary. All the above are saying is that we believers have been baptised and as such are now part of God's family. There is no clear argument that baptism is a gift of God to display his grace to mankind.
quote:
Basically I'd say you have pretty much the whole NT against a believers' baptism position, even if the "households" only included adults - some of these would inevitably have been adults who would have had no say. And they were baptized as a group. They took their identity from the "household", and that identity was now Christian.
And I say you are reading a lot into that. If it did include the baptisms of people who 'had no say' that would go against the whole thrust of the previous passages on baptism.
quote:
As I say, you don't have to prove that the NT encompasses the baptism of children to be able to say that it doesn't support believers' baptism.
Well I think you do. I don't understand what you are talking about to be frank.
quote:
But if it doesn't support believers' baptism, what's the Biblical objection to baptizing children?
I think it does support believers baptism therefore the objection is that infants are not believers.
quote:
Belivers' baptism is connected with a view of what it meant to be a human subject that began to become salient in the sixteenth century. There's all sorts of evidence that it's now beginning to fade away. We are all interconnected, and our lives are all bound together. I think we may be considerably closer to the ethos of the NT for the passing of the modern subject.
Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think it is not true. Believers baptism was the pattern from the gospels, and no matter what happened between then and the sixteenth century, it was right to reinstate it as the norm.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sorry, that last post should have been addressed to Cheesy. And this is my last of the morning! (My sermon isn't progressing...)
Leprechaun: quote:
it seems to be a rather elastic theology of baptism - if someone is not capable of making a decision then you (the church/the parents) decide for them but if they can then it becomes a sign of them asking something from God.
Again, I'm not sure I understand the point. If someone wasn't baptised as a child, how are they going to come for baptism? You can't insist that a 47 year old be brough by his parents! I don't see that my position amounts to more than saying "Baptism is for all ages, because it is about ingrafting into Christ, membership of his body, the church, and dying with Christ to sin, so that we may rise with him in glory." What's inconsistent about that?
quote:
..a sign of them asking something from God.
No, it's the sign and actuality of something given by God.
quote:
Which is, after all, simply the Baptist position.
Maybe. But not mine.
quote:
I think your theology only works if it is saying at the very least, it is better to be baptised as a child, and it actually, ISTM, fits rather uncomfortably with someone becoming a Christian from a non-Christian background.
I just don't understand this bit. What's the scenario you envisage? quote:
Which is a weird, because ISTM that in the NT that was exactly what baptism was supposed to signify in the first place.
No, baptism in the NT signifies all that the NT says it does, which is an enormously more complicated understanding than that. You are using a first-generation-Christian model to understand the whole life of the Church. But that's really the point. For a baptsit perspective, doesn't it always have to be a first-generation Christian perspective? Family, upbringing in the church, all of this Christianly really means nothing until you "take the plunge" (wonder if that's where that comes from? Never thought of it before!) Everything starts with conversion/baptism. It's as though there wasn't aybody there before, in Christian terms. Would a baptist really want to disagree with that? I really don't want to misrepresent people, but I honestly don't think I am.
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
On the other hand, baptising random children makes a mockery of the gospel, which calls for individuals to repent and change their ways.
Let's take the sacrament out of this for a moment, and consider things from a highly materialistic point of view, just for the sake of argument.
Such a viewpoint might see transforming grace as something that comes to us by virtue of the things that happen to us - thus, I hear about God's love for us and that affects my thinking in such a way that I respond to it by attempting to amend the dodgy parts of my life, such as my selfishness, my peculiar desire to seek revenge for every injury, and so on.
This doesn't specifically require any magic-like effects, I think you'll agree? It's just saying that our experiences colour our perceptions which colour our actions.
Now, according to this view, what happens when an adult comes to believe in Christ and chooses to get baptised? Well, we're ruling out any interventionist version of the sacrament so we're left with, the powerful symbolism of the individual's old life ending, new life beginning, welcoming into the church, public confession of faith and so on.
But, so what? Why is this good? I say from this viewpoint alone that it's good because it effects a change in the person in the way that any experience does - and the experience changes a person in a positive way as a powerful push towards repentance, like a nitrous oxide boost in the spiritual race.
With me so far?
Now, what happens when an infant is baptised? What happens is that the parents and Godparents in making the promises and experiencing the symbolism, are changed in exactly the same powerful way but for and focussed on the benefit of the child, and thus the child comes to be transformed from what that child would otherwise be through the nurture of the adults making the promises.
So, to answer your argument, children are not being baptised randomly. We're not kidnapping them and returning them to their parents - they're the children of believers at whatever level and even without any involvement of God in a sacramental intervention or miraculous sense, the faith and all that goes with it is imparted to the child through the parents, Godparents, and the wider Church just as it is imparted to the adult convert.
Now, I believe there's more to a sacrament than that, but for those that don't, I think this line of reasoning is quite damaging to the argument that one should wait for adult conversion before a baptism is meaningful.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Dang! Just one more teeny weeny post... Cheesy: quote:
Nope, I didn't ignore it. I think you are wrong. John's baptism is the same as all the other baptisms in the NT. Same pattern, same thing.
But the New Testament repeatedly says it isn't. Matt 3:[11] "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Mark.1
[4] John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
[5] And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
[8] I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." Luke.3
[3] and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
[7] He said therefore to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
[12] Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, "Teacher, what shall we do?"
[16] John answered them all, "I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (Okay, I know those are synoptic parallels! but...) John.1
[25] They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?"
[26] John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know,
[28] This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
[31] I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."
[33] I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, `He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' John.3
[22] After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.
[23] John also was baptizing at Ae'non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized.
[26] And they came to John, and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him." Acts.1
[5] for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts.2
[38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts.13
[24] Before his coming John had preached a baptism of repentance to all the people of IsraelActs.18
[8] Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
[25] He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
It's as though there wasn't aybody there before, in Christian terms. Would a baptist really want to disagree with that? I really don't want to misrepresent people, but I honestly don't think I am.
That's right - dead in sins etc.
I think what I am saying is, by baptising adults at all, at their request, you admit there is an element of choice involved.
To work backwards from there - the church/parents make that choice for the child - THEY confer grace on the child. Especially if you have the sacramental understanding of baptism that worries me - not least because it flies in the face of what I believe about repentance and faith to salvation but because so many churches, especially the RC impose strictures on who can be baptised. The church becomes the arbiter of salvation because the church administers the saving rite. This, ISTM, is the exact type of thinking the Reformers were against.
Just to outline my own thoughts on the issue - I think a decent case can be made, as you say Psyduck, from the internal logic of baptism that it should be extended as a covenant sign to children. My concern is much more with the supposed conferring of grace through baptism whether done to adults or to children, though IME, as I have said in a previous post it is infant baptism that promotes the "I've had the rite, I'm all right Jack" approach to whole, that IME makes a complete mockery of Jesus' call to repentance. BB at least has the advantage of asking the person whether they have turned to Christ before adminsitering the sign, and thus does not leave itself so much available as a tool to bulwark church power.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
To work backwards from there - the church/parents make that choice for the child - THEY confer grace on the child.
Your argument seems to deny that grace operates in the realm of experience, or of our reality if you like. Would you say that was fair?
As in, when you say that faith is a gift from God, what you mean is that God implanted it in your brain as a miracle, and that God definitely did not implant it in your brain by means of the fact that an existing member of the Church one day explained the Gospel to you, and that that happened as a consequence of God's actions in the real, experienced world as Jesus Christ.
When you do something good, is it you doing it, or God?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Leprechaun: quote:
To work backwards from there - the church/parents make that choice for the child - THEY confer grace on the child.
You've said this before, but I must be honest, I simply don't understand it. It's God who does all these things. Unless you work with a "petrol pump" analogy of grace, where it's simply on hand and dispensed - and maybe there are people who think like that (in fact, I suspect that there really are!) - the parents no more "confer grace" on the child than someone who comes for adult baptism self-serves at the "grace pump". (Just for clarity, I'm obviously not imputing such views to you, but I think you may be in danger of imputing them to your opponents.)
What happens in our (C of S) view is that the love and grace that God had always intended this child to have is given to it. It is always possible that the child will repudiate this love and grace - and one kind of strict Calvinist view will say that God always knew that that was going to happen, and withheld that love and grace from the person. (I think that's monstrous, myself.) But the point is that baptism, either for the Elect in that kind of Calvinism, or for everybody else in all other (including some Calvinist) sacramental understandings, conveys God's grace to the person receiving the sacrament. It 'configures' (good word, that!) them to a whole set of things that God has done, centring on the Cross and Resurrection (that's Paul's teaching) so that Jesus Christ's story, the Christian story becomes their story. But the point is that what God has done in Christ, once-for-all, is done when we are utterly helpless (because not even yet existing.) I don't think you can really understand Paul's teaching on baptism apart form Romans 5:1-11 - and the whole of his teaching on grace.
quote:
The church becomes the arbiter of salvation because the church administers the saving rite.
This is only so if salvation is tied to baptism so that unbaptised is damned. Or at least, not saved.
But anyway, what would happen to someone who presented themselves for baptism at a Baptist church and was refused - presumably on the basis that they weren't a real Christian (and I'm assuming here the equation of 'Christian' and 'saved' which several posters have more or less explicitly made.) No doubt some baptists - maybe most - would say that they didn't believe that such exclusion necessarily involved damnation, but isn't that precisely the same ecclesiastical control you are protesting about?
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
Like many contributing here i am in the midst of finalising preparation for the coming busy days, and i will then take a couple of days off.
I have more to say on the topic, and if it's still buzzing next week i'll contribute here again.
Regards & Easter blessings
M
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Trigasion:
quote:
The Tradition of those Churches who can claim to have been around since the time of the Apostles
I thought it was one church that had been around since the birthday of the church? One holy catholic and apostolic church.....
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Trigasion:
quote:
The Tradition of those Churches who can claim to have been around since the time of the Apostles
I thought it was one church that had been around since the birthday of the church? One holy catholic and apostolic church.....
Indeed Daisymay and it subsists in the Catholic Church, that is the Church in communion with the successor of St Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Og: Thread Killer wrote:
quote:
Tradition is not considered a valid arguement by most of us who practice BB.
No, but if you're arguing about when a practice such as the baptism of children developed then one has to engage with the Church Fathers because their writings are the evidence for that period (during which the Canon of the NT was developing)
Carys
I am/was making more an observation then an arguement. I hear you, but for most who are using BB, only the "Bible" matters. The rest is considered subjective. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
So, arguing using tradition and Church Fathers' writing is pointless as it presupposes a willingness to listen to those factors; that willingness is not there.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Halo
Shipmate
# 6933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Halo:
Surely baptism of a baby is a different matter to baptism as an adult? A baby has no clue what is going on and is incapable of making a decision for themself, whereas an adult chooses to be baptised. What happens if the baby grows up and rejects God? Are they still 'baptised'? My understanding was that only believers should be baptised. Answers anyone?
I have a question instead. Are you an Arminian?
Arminian?!? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) No, what gave you that impression?
Posts: 625 | From: The Land of the Long White Cloud | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Psyduck:
quote:
You are using a first-generation-Christian model to understand the whole life of the Church. But that's really the point. For a baptsit perspective, doesn't it always have to be a first-generation Christian perspective? Family, upbringing in the church, all of this Christianly really means nothing until you "take the plunge" (wonder if that's where that comes from? Never thought of it before!) Everything starts with conversion/baptism. It's as though there wasn't aybody there before, in Christian terms. Would a baptist really want to disagree with that? I really don't want to misrepresent people, but I honestly don't think I am.
Yes, you're right - that belief that there is only one generation of christians is foundational to the hanging on to only believer's baptism. It's the idea that every single person has to make their own decision to follow Christ. No-one else can do it in any way for another person.
Parents and the church are responsible for teaching and presenting the gospel, but cannot step in and affirm belief on a baby's or any other person's behalf. Each individual has their own freedom of choice.
This is probably as important for the argument for believer's baptism as looking at the NT and history. It might even be the modern (post-mediaeval) reason for believer's baptism to grow again as a habit.
I hadn't thought of this before either, Psyduck.
So a church that practices believer's baptism ought to be church where there is great freedom of choice and no bossing around. Unfortunately, that ain't always the case. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Trigasion:
quote:
The Tradition of those Churches who can claim to have been around since the time of the Apostles
I thought it was one church that had been around since the birthday of the church? One holy catholic and apostolic church.....
Indeed Daisymay and it subsists in the Catholic Church, that is the Church in communion with the successor of St Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
But that denomination of the historic church doesn't officially have me in communion with them - even though individual priests within that lot do .
I meant that we all belong to the church that goes back to the very beginnings. We do have, however, different traditions, many of which come and go.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
At the risk of straying into Dead Horse territory, the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the Church.
Your second remark betrays a strange order. You say that the Catholic Church does not have you in communion with it. Doesn't that rather put you at the centre of the ecclesial universe?
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
You are using a first-generation-Christian model to understand the whole life of the Church. But that's really the point. For a baptsit perspective, doesn't it always have to be a first-generation Christian perspective? Family, upbringing in the church, all of this Christianly really means nothing until you "take the plunge" (wonder if that's where that comes from? Never thought of it before!) Everything starts with conversion/baptism. It's as though there wasn't aybody there before, in Christian terms. Would a baptist really want to disagree with that? I really don't want to misrepresent people, but I honestly don't think I am.
History is important to many who do BB. Us Anabaptists, for example, have a finely developed sense of history of our "movement", as it were. But, it's the history of those who, we believe, followed the early churches approach.
It's a line 2000 years long, although others disagree.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Halo:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Halo:
Surely baptism of a baby is a different matter to baptism as an adult? A baby has no clue what is going on and is incapable of making a decision for themself, whereas an adult chooses to be baptised. What happens if the baby grows up and rejects God? Are they still 'baptised'? My understanding was that only believers should be baptised. Answers anyone?
I have a question instead. Are you an Arminian?
Arminian?!? No, what gave you that impression?
Your strong argument that an adult must choose to be baptised - in short, must choose faith and is then saved, is what Arminianism is all about, isn't it? At least as far as I understand his writings.
Calvinism, on the other hand, has it that those who have faith have it as a specific gift of God that's not given to those who don't, and nobody chooses anything themselves.
A more Catholic approach (I think) is that acceptance of grace is a process that requires freely willed cooperation, and that the distinction between saving grace and sanctifying grace isn't that meaningful.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Tradition is not considered a valid arguement by most of us who practice BB.
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
History is important to many who do BB.
Do you think of tradition as something distinct from history then?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
What happens in our (C of S) view is that the love and grace that God had always intended this child to have is given to it.
And why is it given? Because the parents take the child, and the church uses the correct formula to dispense it. The thing is, you seem to deny ANY human responsibility whatsoever. Now that's fine if you want to be a hyper-Calvinist, but I don't think you do (and you also need to account for the fact that God doesn't choose to extend this grace to all the kids who through no fault of their own don't get taken through the doors of your church)
For an adult, their choice or repentance is the reason why this relationship with God is bestowed, but the child has no choice about it, neither does the child who is not baptised, it's just some sort of grace lottery through bathing. Which, IMNSVHO, makes a mockery of repent and believe for the kingdom of God is near.
quote:
This is only so if salvation is tied to baptism so that unbaptised is damned. Or at least, not saved.
Indeed. hence last rites for dying babies and emotional manipulation by church hierarchies.
quote:
No doubt some baptists - maybe most - would say that they didn't believe that such exclusion necessarily involved damnation, but isn't that precisely the same ecclesiastical control you are protesting about?
Well, I can't imgaine why that would happen, but even if it did, it's not half as serious, because baptism does not, in the BB tradition, confer any special (if you don't like "saving") grace. There are far smaller stakes being talked about.
Similarly, the candidate is able to have explained the morality and lifestyle of being in receipt of grace should lead to. Then they can decide if it is for them or not. You said this as much about baptising adults.
But for some reason, infants in your congregation are not to have this same dignity extended to them.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Leprechaun: quote:
And why is it given? Because the parents take the child, and the church uses the correct formula to dispense it.
It's given because that's the meaning of the sacrament. It's given because God is faithful to those things to which His promises attach, that are done in his name. And the correct formula, by the way, is correct because it's biblical, and commanded by Christ at the end of Matthew's Gospel. It wasn't cooked up by a bunch of bishops in a pub. What is this problem with any other sense of grace than God spreading it on a table and shouting "Come and get it!"?
quote:
Well, I can't imgaine why that would happen, but even if it did, it's not half as serious, because baptism does not, in the BB tradition, confer any special (if you don't like "saving") grace.
SO people don't have to profess their faith in Christ and get baptized in order to be saved? If that's so, fair enough.
quote:
Similarly, the candidate is able to have explained the morality and lifestyle of being in receipt of grace should lead to.
In other words, you're saying that God's love and grace are conditional.
quote:
Then they can decide if it is for them or not. You said this as much about baptising adults.
But for some reason, infants in your congregation are not to have this same dignity extended to them.
So the good shepherd going after the lost sheep was an affront to its dignity?
Basically my problem with all this is my problem with Arminianism generally. If you're willing to save yourself, God is happy to provide all the equipment.
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
At the risk of straying into Dead Horse territory, the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the Church.
Gee, Trisagion. Father Gregory says his church is the Church and not a denomination. Hm.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
