quote:

---

Mostly, "X, , on your profession of faith, I baptise you in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Splash!!!!

I've also heard, "X, ....I baptise you in the Name of Jesus."

---

It's the latter that I heard at my friend's baptism at an independent evangelical Church. Which gives me a problem, in that I'm not convinced baptism in the name of Jesus alone is valid - read Matthew 28:19. As she doesn't reckon that my baptism (as an infant) is valid, that leaves us in an interesting position. I try not to think about it too much. But why do some Churches baptise in the name of Jesus only?

Every verse, bar the one that Carys mentioned, said about being baptised in the name of Jesus.

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ."

Acts 8:16
because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48
So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ

Acts 19:5
On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

Incidentally, some Catholic parishes have started baptizing adults by immersion, and even more are pouring water so the entire person gets wet, as in the pictures here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Incidentally, some Catholic parishes have started baptizing adults by immersion, and even more are pouring water so the entire person gets wet, as in the pictures here.

---

How splendid.

White is a more appropriate colour to wear after the baptism, and in the early church, when most baptisms were carried out on Easter Sunday, the candidates would then wear their white robes until Low Sunday.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Quite right too. Generally you only say 'in the name of' but it gives extra time if dunking each time. While we're on this subject, what words are used in non-liturgical churches?

Carys

---

In order for me to be a member of the CofE it is necessary for me to have been baptised. The test for whether a baptism is "valid" in the eyes of the CofE is that it must have involved water and be in the name of the Trinity (see the rubric towards the end of the service of "Private Baptism of Infants" in the BCP, for example).

Because my baptism fell into this category it is regarded as valid by the CofE, but a baptism in the name of Jesus would not be so recognised (at lest, it should not, according to Ecclesiastical law). My Baptism would be recognised as valid by almost all Christian denominations and groups, except for the Orthodox and some protestant churches with strict requirements for baptism within their own churches.

But this is in danger of getting a little non-bizarre.

The little cups of grape juice are served to people where they are - probably to signify that those who've attained the dizzy heights of deacon-hood aren't any better than the other celebrants.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duns Scotus:

And the fear of having anabaptism going on is very strong...

---

I'm a good anabaptist.

Chapelhead said, "Because my baptism fell into this category it is regarded as valid by the CofE, but a baptism in the name of Jesus would not be so recognised (at lest, it should not, according to Ecclesiastical law). My Baptism would be recognised as valid by almost all Christian denominations and groups, except for the Orthodox and some protestant churches with strict requirements for baptism within their own churches."

quote:

---

some of the candidates were baptised "in the name of Jesus" and others "trinitarianly".

---

Why? That just strikes me as bizarre.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
I really should know the answer to this question, but what are Presbyterians?!

Bongo

---

quote:

---

but what are Presbyterians?!

---

To an extent it depends where you are. In Wales it is the old Calvinistic Methodists. In England most of them united with the Congregationalists to form the URC - though not all did - and in Scotland the CoS and the Free CoS and the wee frees are all Presby (as I understand it).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
what are Presbyterians?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
what are Presbyterians?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
I'm a good anabaptist.

---

Are you sure? (about the anabaptist bit - I'm sure you're good).

But for an adult, with full emersion, they they are done once,at the end of the 'formula'.

bb

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
I really should know the answer to this question, but what are Presbyterians?!

Bongo

---

I think Bongo's question was perhaps more along the lines of description, or dictionary definition, rather than "which groups are Presbyterians ?"

But in the Presbyterian Church, presbyters are the congregation. All of the congregation are priests. The minister, and the elders are people that the people have deemed worthy to serve them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
In the Methodist and Anglican church, presbyter is the term used for odained priest/minister.

But in the Presbyterian Church, presbyters are the congregation. All of the congregation are priests. The minister, and the elders are people that the people have deemed worthy to serve them.

---

I mean in terms of leadership/government, theology, and idiosynchracies (sp?!), if any.

NB: I speak as a MOR Church of England gal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
So what exactly is the difference between Baptists and Presbyterians?

I mean in terms of leadership/government, theology, and idiosynchracies (sp?!), if any.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
Quite. So what exactly is the difference between Baptists and Presbyterians?

I mean in terms of leadership/government, theology, and idiosynchracies (sp?!), if any.

NB: I speak as a MOR Church of England gal.

Bongo

---

Basically Church Government and Baptism.

Taking Church Government First
Presbyterians have a central form of Government which is usually a synod which rather like the synod of the CoE makes the decisions for the Presbyterian Church. The amount of power it has varies from Presbyterian denomination to denomination (a word I hate but I want to distinguish between say the Church of Scotland and The Wee Frees both of which are Presbyterians but are rather diffferent) So in some Presbyterian churches the synod has absolute power in other it is like the CoE's. Unlike the CoE's synod it is totally lay even the ministers there are lay (though since they believe in the priesthood of all believers you caould say that they are totally a house of priests!)
Baptists and Congregationalist churches have the local church as the ultimate authority
and all decisions are made by the church meeting of members of that local church - including the appointment and pay of any minister(s). However they do link together with other Baptist (or Congregationlist) churches in Associations or Conventions
voluntarily but it is the local church that appoints members to the association and decides whether it should be a member or not. In Great Britain most baptist churches belong to a local assocation and in turn the asociation co-operate in the Baptist Union of Great Britain, but in theory the Baptist Union has no power over its member churches. As membership is volentary there are other associations such as Grace Baptist which has nothing to do with the Baptist Union and is stricter demanding Calvinist beliefs.

In England most Presbyterians and Congrgationalists joined together to form the United Reform Church which has a hybrid form of church government.

OK now Baptism
Presbyterians go for infant baptism like the CoE, in fact their baptismal beliefs tend to be the same as the CoE. Congregationalists hold similar views.

Baptists get their name from their distinct teaching on baptism which is called believers baptism. That is infants are not baptised but only those who make a public confession of their faith are baptised. Inn the case of children of Baptists the children are allowed to decide if or when they are baptised (the most common tiome to choose is mid-teens). Before anyone can be baptised at least the minister must be convinced of them being a christian. However a conversion experience is not necessarily required as Baptists are not necessarily evangelicals although the majority probably are.

I don't know how bizarre Protestant or Baptist church governance is (I'll leave it for you to decide), but I do know that it is not a bizarre practice.

So please open a separate thread to discuss the ecclesiology of calvinists, congregationalists, presbys, regicides, baptists, adult-dunkers, Amish or any other such.

Here, though, can we please discuss the bizarre practice of public confessions of conversion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
I'm a good anabaptist.

---

That's a contradiction in terms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
That's a contradiction in terms.

Cosmo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Here, though, can we please discuss the bizarre practice of public confessions of conversion?
[MW Host]

---

Yes please. I had to do it (and apparently so did daisymay, so let's have a few more confessions of profession.

[Aside]My great apologies if my previous comment seemed detreimental to those happy to describe themselves as anabaptist. I was thinking only in terms of the usual UK use of that term and in particular my own understanding of it. [/Aside]

[ubb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
That's a contradiction in terms.

---

Cosmo, read the 3rd Commandment recently? Cos you have just broken it.

quote:

---

Name-calling and personal insults are not allowed, regardless of the context. The same goes for comment which stereotypes or attacks people on the basis of their race, nationality, age, gender, religious belief or sexual preference..... When discussing a specific people group, please mentally substitute the name of a shipmate for the group in question before you post your message.

---

If you want to start a thread discussing the merits and demerits of the Anabaptists, then please do feel free.

quote:

---

I don't know how bizarre Protestant or Baptist church governance is (I'll leave it for you to decide), but I do know that it is not a bizarre practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Here, though, can we please discuss the bizarre practice of public confessions of conversion?

---

What, you mean 'testimony'?

I remember this happening in an Anglican church of my acquaintance. A, um, minister with a guitar ministry and his ex-model wife were leading the service. She gave her testimony - which involved 20 minutes or so of described what she used to do - modelling, hanging around in Hollywood, lying next to swimming pools, etc, etc - and then, noticing that she'd gone way over time, was concluded in less than a minute with something along the lines of "And then I became a Christian and now I do this."

A couple of weeks agao, we had a 'testimony' from a woman who then went on to speak for half-an-hour on a variety of rambling subjects, some of them possibly quite offensive.

Our Pastor was not pleased. Neither was I, for that matter.

But when it's done properly - and honestly, testimony can be very useful, both as an alternative (ie. non-sermon) way of communicating beliefs, as something which can be both encouraging and challenging, and which can also help us to get to know people in the church other than the leadership.

It's not about 'therapy' - it doesn't work like that, and it's often more edgy that 'cuddly'.

Anabaptists or Mennonites are not fairly mainstream as Astro claims (in the way that Quakers or the Salvation Army are not fairly mainstream). Not only do they uphold the doctrine of the baptism of believers only (ie no infant baptism) they also deny that any baptism an infant received was not a true baptism and that they need to be re-baptised. That is a complete denial of the baptismal regeneration and a denial of the saving grace of God. After all, it means that we tell God if his grace is working or not. 'No God. You were firing blanks with little Leo twenty years ago. Now he's grown up, he can now tell you to forgive him. Thanks a lot.'

Not even the strictest of strict Pius X Society Catholics would claim that a Trinitarian baptism, done at Westminster Abbey or a tin hut in Indiana, needs to be done again.

That's what I mean.

quote:

---

Seventeenth-century regicides.

---

Those are Independents/congregationalists, HT, Scottish Presbyterians opposed the regicide, accepted Charles II as King and went to war with Cromwell. In consequence thousands of Scots Presbyterians were killed fighting for Charles II.

I don't think the English Presbyterians supported the regicide either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I'm not having a go at daisymay herself for describing herself as a 'good anabaptist' but questioning, like Chapelhead, whether she really understands what that means.

---

I would like to point out that I have already apologised for any offence my comment might have made (although none was intended). I would also point out that I am/have been someone to whom the term anabaptist could be applied (incorrectly in my view, presumably correctly in Cosmo’s view) and that, far from regarding anabaptists as ‘not good’ I have no problem with the views normally termed ‘anabaptist’.

Back to the thread…

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I'm not having a go at daisymay herself for describing herself as a 'good anabaptist' but questioning, like Chapelhead, whether she really understands what that means.
...
That's what I mean.

---

But that is not what you said. By saying saying that "good anabaptist is a contradiction in terms" you took a little pot shot at anabaptists, and Daisymay considers herself to be an anabaptist. So by extention you were also having a go at her. That is why I included the quote from the 3rd C. It explain what is and is not acceptable.

I didn't think that you meant to have a go at Daisymay. So I didn't ask for an apology.

If people would like to continue to debate about anabaptists then please start a new thread.

Now, these testimonials. I rather imagine them taking place like this:

Wood: "Hello, my name is Wood, and I am a Christian."

Baptists: "Hello Wood!"

Wood: "Before I was a Christian I whored around and drank myself silly."

Baptists: "Amen".

Wood: "After I found Jesus, I don't do that stuff anymore."

Baptists: "Amen brother!"

Wood: "Now that I found Jesus, I am saved."

Baptists: "Amen Amen."

Wood: "And now instead of boozing and shagging, I evangelise people."

Baptists: "Amen!"

Followed by some splashing in a large pool.

Now, I am sure it must not really be like that, so won't you please assist us?

By the way, Astro, I *have* been to a Baptist Meeting, in Virginia. It was not bizarre, but it was very boring. We all sat down in very uncomfortable pews. We sang a hymn and several (maybe 7?) men in suits filed in and sat on a dais in the front in big chairs like bishops' thrones. In turns, each one of them got up and read a lesson or lead a prayer. This was interspersed with time for quiet prayer. Then there was a very long sermon given by an elderly man in a suit. There followed a collection of money, more praying and lessons, and another hymn. The whole thing lasted nearly two hours. No one actually shouted amen or raised his hands in that air -- it was all very staid.

I had forgot about it until now. There was a pulpit and one or two lecterns and no Holy Table. And no altar hangings or coloured cloths at all. I assume the baptism pool was secreted under the dais, but I am not sure.

What gets said when someone "gives a testimony" at a baptismal service? Well, looking back at my own baptism, I got up an explained how I was not brought up in a "religious" household and that church-going was not something that we did as a family. As a teenager a friend of mine became a Christian and in a fairly typical teenage way we talked about life, death, the universe and everything, including Christianity. He invited me to attend his (Baptist) church, which I did for a few months before deciding to attend the church I was being baptised in (which another friend attended). After learning more at both of these churches about God, Christ, Christianity and so forth I became convinced intellectually of the truth of Christianity and then determined to commit my life to the Christian faith. Consequent to this I decided to get baptised, as a public demonstration of my decision to "die to Christ" and commit to the Christian faith.

Now, that probably sounds horribly twee, but in the context of the service it seems very different (just as everyone taking one sip from big cup and then it being passed to the next person sounds pretty twee if taken out of context).

quote:

---

By the way, Astro, I *have* been to a Baptist Meeting, in Virginia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

Now, these testimonials. I rather imagine them taking place like this:
Wood: "Hello, my name is Wood, and I am a Christian."
Baptists: "Hello Wood!"
Wood: "Before I was a Christian I whored around and drank myself silly."
Baptists: "Amen".
Wood: "After I found Jesus, I don't do that stuff anymore."
Baptists: "Amen brother!"
Wood: "Now that I found Jesus, I am saved."
Baptists: "Amen Amen."
Wood: "And now instead of boozing and shagging, I evangelise people."
Baptists: "Amen!"
Followed by some splashing in a large pool.

---

Now that I have recovered from my paroxysms of helpless laughter...

HT - first, you clearly haven't been to a business meeting. It's a different proposition entirely, although Astro is (hopefully) taking the mickey a little about the content...

Now. First: a 'testimonial' is a footie match rlayed in honour of a retiring footballer. A 'testimony' is exactly what it says - a bearing of witness.

For example: Those who do not believe in infant baptism consider it extremely bizarre that one would take a tiny baby, one who barely has sentience (I can probably find the exact age at which developmental psychologist Jerome Kagan postulates that sentience occurs in the human), and have a sacramental ceremony **done to** him/her, outside of the child's understanding and consent.

On the other hand, those who do not consider the apostolic succession to be important consider it bizarre that other people would consider that a mystical force is **handed down** by the laying on of hands. And that without such a proof of unbroken succession, the person saying the formula for doing the eucharist is not the proper person to do so and the eucharistic meal is therefore "invalid." Can the apostolic succession people really prove an unbroken line all the way back to St. Peter? Because I would consider a paper trail surviving that long to be very much miraculous!

Can the apostolic succession people really prove an unbroken line all the way back to St. Peter? Because I would consider a paper trail surviving that long to be very much miraculous!
...........................................

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

We had a discussion about this, when some Anglican friends visited a baptism and some of the candidates were baptised "in the name of Jesus" and others "trinitarianly". They came to the conclusion that as it all took place in the context of a trinitarian service, the baptism was validly trinitarian, and the words were not to be taken legalistically.

---

Carys,
I think it was just the idiosyncricity of the different people doing the dunking, and because there were many candidates, the baptisers changed every so often - they didn't have parents baptising their own children, for example.

My own children were dedicated, and the service is very similar to C of S "baptism', without the water, almost same words.