|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Infant baptism!
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam's Asteroid:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean:
Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?
But that would turn the sacraments into some sort of magic.
Abracadabra, you're saved.
Not really. One could hold that baptism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for salvation.
This is not my view, but I don't think such views are equivalent to "magic."
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Infant baptism is valid but usually undesirable.
Valid, because salvation does not depend on the intelligence or knowledge of the saved person, and God is not bound by time.
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.
And secondly because it has become absorbed into European culture as a naming ceremony for children and is often seen as a purely social event with no Christian content.
As pseudo-Christian folk religion gets rarer, the second of these reasons gets weaker - and we could have an argument about infant baptism being a useful occasion for evangelism.
Which ends you up in the position that many people I know are in that Christian parents often don't have their children baptised, and non-Christians do!
My daughter was not baptised as an infant. She chose baptism for herself later. Which is good ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Ken ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
My views exactly!
In the C of E we're stuck with infant baptism so I suppose we just have to make the use of it. I know some churches who insist on an Alpha course or equivalent as a condition of performing the baptism and this strickes me as very sensible.
In my experience believers baptisms are much more powerful, meaningful experiences than confirmation. It is regrettable that infant baptism can deny people that experience.
I know of one Anglican church which did reaffirmations of baptismal views by immersion - basically like a full baptism except with the priest saying "I reaffirm your baptismal vows..." rather than "I baptise you". Not sure what the legal/theological basis was for this though.
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mimsey
Shipmate
# 3757
|
Posted
My baptism, as a baby, is very important to me. I believe that in it, I received the promises from my parents and Godparents to bring me up as a Christian; the promises of other Christians to welcome me into the church; and the blessing of those promises by God.
However, I think that the reason I still hold so strongly to my infant baptism is that my parents and Godparents truly believed and kept those promises. I think that if my baptism had just been a formality, and if my parents and Godparents were not Christians, then I would want to be re-baptised at this point in my life. I don't, because I understand and believe that the promises as well as the sacrament were true and "worked" for me.
I was confirmed when I was ten. Looking back, I see that it was too early, and I'm not sure that I would allow my child to be confirmed that early; then again, I do remember that at the time, I was very eager to do it, and did truly believe that I knew what was going on. Once again, even if it was possible, I wouldn't be confirmed again now just because I think I understand more. Christianity is a progressive thing in many senses: I'm certain people can be saved before they've grasped the last detail. If I was using confirmation solely to proclaim my own belief, I would have wanted to do it again at 15, and probably yet again now! But it was far more about God choosing me, a blessing which did not disappear whatever happened to my faith, and which will not disappear now. If I want to re-confirm my belief publically for some reason, I'll give a testimony before my church; telling people that you believe doesn't need a sacrament or ceremony.
I know plenty of people who were baptised as infants, and chose to be baptised again as teenaged new Christians. I think that's up to them. I would want to baptise my own children as infants, and if they felt as teenagers or adults that they wanted to be baptised instead of being confirmed, I don't think I'd have too much of a problem with that. Watching them give their lives to Jesus would be enough for me, however they chose to do it.
--------------------
Certitude! Certitude! Sentiment! Joie! Paix!
Posts: 217 | From: Deepest darkest Suffolk | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.
That's why the CofE has confirmation - where you confirm the vows made on your behalf by your parents yourself.
Er, no.
At Confirmation the Bishops confirms your Baptism.
Other stuff may happen as well, but that is the essence of Confirmation.
I thought it was the Holy Ghost doing the confirming, but there you go.
Well, it's the Lord, by his Holy Spirit, but the Bishop lends him a hand.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Trying to clarify thinking slightly...
Let us suppose that you have two sets of parents. One set decide to have their child baptised, the other set decides not to.
The two children die.
What happens to the children?
That's God's call, not ours.
Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?
I do believe that the sacraments are a means by which God helps us to be what he wants us to be. I don't know about you, but I need all the help I can get, and would like the same for my children, if and when He blesses us with any.
So baptism has no efficacy? Or Baptism has efficacy?
quote:
Originally posted by Sean:
Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?
And neither did I.
But there is a difference between necessary for salvation and effective for salvation.
Would anyone suggest that baptism is the latter?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
quote:
In my experience believers baptisms are much more powerful, meaningful experiences than confirmation. It is regrettable that infant baptism can deny people that experience.
Of course, experience is everything.
quote:
So baptism has no efficacy? Or Baptism has efficacy?
I thought I'd been clear - definitely the latter.
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Mimsey wrote:
quote:
However, I think that the reason I still hold so strongly to my infant baptism is that my parents and Godparents truly believed and kept those promises. I think that if my baptism had just been a formality, and if my parents and Godparents were not Christians, then I would want to be re-baptised at this point in my life. I don't, because I understand and believe that the promises as well as the sacrament were true and "worked" for me.
But would it not have 'worked' had your parents not believed? Would God have not kept his promises?
Sean wrote: quote:
Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?
Perhaps not on this thread, but on the Believers' Baptism thread, the phrase 'generally necessary for salvation' has been used. And that is what I hold.
I think the Roman Catholic Catechism puts it well
quote:
Section 1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
But there is a difference between necessary for salvation and effective for salvation.
Would anyone suggest that baptism is the latter?
If we are saved by God's grace then it would be perfectly reasonable to believe that baptism is one of the ways in which we receive God's grace, without suggesting it is the only way.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Has anyone here (on either side) suggested that baptism is necessary for salvation?
Perhaps not on this thread, but on the Believers' Baptism thread, the phrase 'generally necessary for salvation' has been used. And that is what I hold.
I think the Roman Catholic Catechism puts it well
quote:
Section 1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
Carys
Ok..., so how would you apply that to infants - necessary or not.
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Is it actually possible to come up with an agreed description of what baptism is, what it does/doesn't do, and the extent to which it is efficacious or necessary?
What we seem to have so far has included (no particular order):
- Sign of Gods grace
- Witness to the faith of the baptised/church/parents/someone else
- Joining the church/grafting into the Church
- Commitment by baptised/church/parents/someone else to follow Christ
- Repentance of sins
- Symbolic of death and resurrection in Christ
- Ummm... must be more
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
I think Alan has come straight to the point I was working round to gradually. The debate is often framed as paedo-baptism vs believers’ baptism. In practice paedo-baptism (and possibly BB) covers a huge range of views, from those who see it as a nice ceremony of no great significance to those who see it as the means by which God effects the start of spiritual regeneration.
As I recall learning
quote:
my baptism, wherin I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven
A Catechism, The Book of Common Prayer
But perhaps that is just my CofEness coming out.
<Silly suggestion - it's not the SoF way>
As we have a thread for thrashing through believers' baptism, perhaps this thread should be restricted to those who support peado-baptism. That subject can be thrown around until some agreement on what paedobaptism is/does is reached and then we can have a "paedo-baptism and believers' baptism" thread to compare and contrast the results
<End of silly suggestion>
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
That's why the CofE has confirmation - where you confirm the vows made on your behalf by your parents yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, no.
At Confirmation the Bishops confirms your Baptism.
Other stuff may happen as well, but that is the essence of Confirmation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was the Holy Ghost doing the confirming, but there you go.
When I was getting ready for confirmation, the vicar emphasised strongly that the candidates were the ones who were confirming the choices and promises the parents had made. Given that our church anoints babies as well as pours water over them, then they must believe that they receive the Holy Spirit then, and so almost all the confirmation ceremony is kind of repeating what the parents and god-parents did.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
If you look at the key bit of the confirmation service, it is quite clear:
(from the ASB, because that's whats to hand
The Bishop lays hishands on the head of each candidate saying
Confrim, O Lord, your servant N with your Holy Spirit
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean:
If you look at the key bit of the confirmation service, it is quite clear:
(from the ASB, because that's whats to hand
The Bishop lays hishands on the head of each candidate saying
Confrim, O Lord, your servant N with your Holy Spirit
Confirm, even. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian S:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Undesirable chiefly because it denies the baptised person the chance of choosing baptism and declaring their faith publically later.
Ken
My views exactly!
In my experience believers baptisms are much more powerful, meaningful experiences than confirmation. It is regrettable that infant baptism can deny people that experience.
I know of one Anglican church which did reaffirmations of baptismal views by immersion - basically like a full baptism except with the priest saying "I reaffirm your baptismal vows..." rather than "I baptise you". Not sure what the legal/theological basis was for this though.
I also think that BB by immersion is such a powerful experience both for the person being baptised and the punters who come along that we should be encouraging the practice.
That's an interesting reaffirming idea, IanS. At Easter, we all get sprinkled with water (unless we manage to duck) at the reaffirmation of baptismal vows bit, but we haven't been immersed!
I think I'd go for Ken's idea that sometimes Christian parents are more likely not to have their children baptised. I'd be shocked if I ever had grand children and they were done. However, in some churches, a bit like ours, you have to argue strongly for the thanksgiving service as baptism is regarded as the norm.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
As you know I am a Baptist so you can guess which form of baptism I prefer.
In my teens I read a book called 'The Water that divides' by Bridge and Phypers (a Baptist and an Anglican IIRC) which was a real eye opener to me.
Until then I could not imagine why some churches choose to baptise infants. But this thoughtful and fair book presented the reasoning behind both forms of baptism, and helped me to understand that paedobaptists have perfectly good reasons for doing things the way they do. And also helped me to see that there are 'problems' on both sides. This totally changed my attitude and since then, although I still belong to a Baptist church, I honestly do not think it is a big deal which way we do it.
In fact our church is fairly unusual in that many of the regular congregation cannot actually become members as they have not been baptised as believers, and do not see the need for it!! (the church rules stipulate baptism necessary for membership). This seems to create unnecessary barriers in my opinion.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
I think both forms of baptism are valid.
I happen to believe that the Eucharist should be open to all members of the church family, and baptism is a sign of entering that family and becoming a disciple.
However I also recognise that for others baptism is far more a sign of completion of a journey to the faith.
I have been baptised three times, but that is another story ...
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Day
Ship's revolutionary
# 3630
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian S:
In the C of E we're stuck with infant baptism so I suppose we just have to make the use of it. I know some churches who insist on an Alpha course or equivalent as a condition of performing the baptism and this strickes me as very sensible.
In my experience believers baptisms are much more powerful, meaningful experiences than confirmation. It is regrettable that infant baptism can deny people that experience.
Having never had a believers baptism, I can't comment on that - but I can say that my confirmation was a powerful, meaningful experience. I do not think that you can say 'one is more pwerful' as they are both times when you are making a public commitment to God. I have been to both sorts of services, and although I prefer confirmations (I enjoy the liturgy and the sense of tradition) I have found believers baptism services to be moving.
To me, Infant baptism is about bringing your child before God and saying that you, and your God Parents, will bring this child up as a christian. The child then confirms this when they are older and can make the decision for themselves.
Tom
--------------------
My allotment blog
Posts: 6473 | From: My Sofa | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Tom Day:
quote:
Having never had a believers baptism, I can't comment on that - but I can say that my confirmation was a powerful, meaningful experience. I do not think that you can say 'one is more pwerful' as they are both times when you are making a public commitment to God. I have been to both sorts of services, and although I prefer confirmations (I enjoy the liturgy and the sense of tradition) I have found believers baptism services to be moving.
I think that immersion takes into account our physicality, and the symbolism is more effectively worked out by very much using our bodies as well as the other parts of our being. It feels like dying and getting back into life when we are dunked.
Are there any other churches like the Orthodox who immerse babies? the Cofe used to dunk them, so why did they stop? and when? The only fonts big enough that I've seen have been very old.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:
That's why the CofE has confirmation - where you confirm the vows made on your behalf by your parents yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, no.
At Confirmation the Bishops confirms your Baptism.
Other stuff may happen as well, but that is the essence of Confirmation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was the Holy Ghost doing the confirming, but there you go.
When I was getting ready for confirmation, the vicar emphasised strongly that the candidates were the ones who were confirming the choices and promises the parents had made. Given that our church anoints babies as well as pours water over them, then they must believe that they receive the Holy Spirit then, and so almost all the confirmation ceremony is kind of repeating what the parents and god-parents did.
That is how it is seen by many - but it is not how the practice originated. It started as the Bishop completing the series of baptismal "ceremonies", some of which (all of which in the Eastern Church) had been delegated to priests.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Churches which practise believer's baptism usually feel a need to have a service for babies, variously understood and described as Dedication, Presentation, Thanksgiving and Blessing.
Churches which practise infant baptism usually feel a need to have a service or rite for young people, such as Confirmation.
There seem to be recognised deficiencies in each form of baptism.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam's Asteroid:
I don't think anyone with a real faith believes that. But there is a problem with those of the margins of Christianity who see the rites as a magic formula.
That was my point ages ago. To me the only validity of infant baptism is the promise made by the infants parents to bring the child up in the church and by implication, prepare the child for Confirmation if it chose. To baptise a child, knowing that the parents are not Christians, is a waste of everyone's time and encourages the view that it is a magic spell. God will favour the infant/child/adult with his Grace whenever it is his Plan.
However, as has been said, it is the law in England that the CoE incumbent must baptise when asked if the baptisee is resident in the parish.
Baptism, if it has any significance at all (I believe it does), should be part of an informed, conscious commitment to Christ. To use a coy phrase "it is the human part of the process that empowers us to act as a disciple for Christ".
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiffer
Shipmate
# 3073
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Mimsey wrote:
quote:
However, I think that the reason I still hold so strongly to my infant baptism is that my parents and Godparents truly believed and kept those promises. I think that if my baptism had just been a formality, and if my parents and Godparents were not Christians, then I would want to be re-baptised at this point in my life. I don't, because I understand and believe that the promises as well as the sacrament were true and "worked" for me.
But would it not have 'worked' had your parents not believed? Would God have not kept his promises?
I think Carys you have missed the point here, Mimsey is not saying that the promises of God aren't always true, as they always are, but that the promises of her parents and God-parents were true, and that this made it all the more important and valid for her. And on this I agree with her. The ceremony is (in my opinion not hers ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) more for the parents than the child, it is where they make the choice to bring the child up to know the ways of the Lord, and to have dedicated people to tell them of the gracious works of God from generation to generation. The sprinkling bit's just for fun
No sorry to be a bit disrespectful, I do apologise, but if you had no idea that Christians had been dunking kids for a very long time it would seriously have a Rev Gerald ring to it (his involuntary spirit-u-all super soaker baptisms).
It's just that I have had both, infant and adult baptism, and I would never want to deprive my children of the latter. Perhaps I would be happier about it if I didn't see confirmation in the established churches being treated like such a joke these days (altho I had a school confirmation so perhaps that had something to do with it). I am not against infant baptism, I just don't see the point in it (apart from the dedication part, that is very important). I am however against stopping people being dunked when of an age to choose as a result of being dunked by their parents. I think that is most unfair, as baptism by water is a wonderful gift for a new Christian, and to have to leave a church in order to do it is not on (I kno of people who have had this problem, an entire family became Christian and most of them weren't allowed to be baptised)
I have had this argument with my ladyfriend many a time, and it does upset me so, and there is a part of me that wants to ignore all that I have been shown about baptism and all I have learnt about it in order to conform, but all the arguments I have been given fall apart very easily. Why is it important to have a sacrament at the beginning of a life? If it is important does it imply that it is inferiour to just be dedicated? Please may someone answer these questions for me, and give me some meaty reasons why I should desire my children to be christened.
I do apologise if I have seemed rude or disjointed, I am tired, it is hot, and I have a head ache.
Tiffer xx
--------------------
"All the Fat belongs to the Lord"
-Leviticus 3:16b
Posts: 411 | From: England (all over) | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Churches which practise believer's baptism usually feel a need to have a service for babies, variously understood and described as Dedication, Presentation, Thanksgiving and Blessing.
Churches which practise infant baptism usually feel a need to have a service or rite for young people, such as Confirmation.
There seem to be recognised deficiencies in each form of baptism.
Churches which have dedication etc services don't regard them as anything like or to do with baptism, or at least I've never encountered such a congregation.
The ceremony is i) about giving thanks to God for the baby, and maybe the safe delivery and the health of the mother, and ii) recognising that the baby belongs to God and is entrusted to the parents to look after.
There is a thanksgiving service in the CofE which we have used in our church as an alternative to infant baptism for parents who believe their children should choose their baptism and their allegience to Christ. And, as Ken said, they are committed Christians themselves rather than non-attending parishioners.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
Interesting comments, all.
I particularly liked:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I think both forms of baptism are valid.
I happen to believe that the Eucharist should be open to all members of the church family, and baptism is a sign of entering that family and becoming a disciple.
And
quote:
Originally posted by Sean:
If you see baptism sacrementaly - i.e. as primarily God doing something - then it makes perfect sense to baptise infants.
If you see it symbolically - primarily as the baptised person doing something - then it makes more sense to leave till later.
The United Methodist Church has a statement on baptism that covers the issues raised in this thread: By Water & the Spirit
You might find it helpful in answering some of your questions, Tiffer. It might also be helpful to those who strongly oppose infant baptism but wish to understand the other side.
My wife and I became Christians at the same time. It’s a long story, but I found myself "coming out" to her as a Christian, thinking she would question my sanity and it would be a problem in our marriage… but she had been going through a similar inner journey and was relieved by my declaration. We started going to a local church that practiced open communion and members of that church welcomed us and joined with us in praying for children. There was never any real question that we would not baptize our baby boy and girl when out prayers were answered. The only unusual element of the ceremony was that we were all baptized together. First father and mother, then son and daughter. Thinking about it still brings tears of joy to my eyes.
I believe that my children will one day chose to be confirmed. I will encourage them to think freely and study hard, but I will always be glad that they will grow up with the support of our church—something I did not have. I don’t have any disagreement with those who choose a dedication or some other approach, but I wish they wouldn’t declare the path we followed "invalid" or inferior. The Holy Spirit isn’t subject to limitation created when people don’t get the magic formula right
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Churches which practise believer's baptism usually feel a need to have a service for babies, variously understood and described as Dedication, Presentation, Thanksgiving and Blessing.
Churches which practise infant baptism usually feel a need to have a service or rite for young people, such as Confirmation.
There seem to be recognised deficiencies in each form of baptism.
Actually this is not entirely true. In the Orthodox Church, baptism, confirmation (we call it chrismation), and first communion all take place at the same time. In fact, to me it seems as though BB simply took the place of confirmation in the West, whereas in the Orthodox Church there's never been a push for BB because we've never had the idea of a child coming to "the age of understanding." Of course, a kid obviously doesn't go to confession at one or two years of age. But there's no dividing line of age between full members and partial, conditional, or future members (or however one might term it).
I think a lot of "the grass is greener on the other side" goes into these issues. Many have said that the BB ceremony is more meaningful to the person baptized and to others. Yet I, received into Holy Orthodoxy as an adult, am somewhat envious of those who were baptized as infants and have been able to grow up being Orthodox instead of having to learn it all later like me. It's difficult to develop an Orthodox mindset, and I have the idea that it might be easier for those who grow up in the Church. (Of course, some of them might disagree!)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Edward Green:
quote:
I have been baptised three times, but that is another story ...
How? Why?
Our vicar dunks people three times (Trinitarian), but that was one baptism...
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiffer
Shipmate
# 3073
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Thinking covenantally about this issue, it seems to me that the pattern in scripture is that children born to 'covenant members' (if I may put it that way) are born into the covenant, and as they grow up may make decisions (in theology or by actions) that take them out of the covenant.
Children born to 'non-covenant members' need to make decisions to enter the covenant.
Also, in 1 Corinthians 10, quote:
1 Cor. 10:1-2 (ESV)
I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, [2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
Paul sees the OT equivalent to baptism as, not circumcision, but the Exodus throught the 'Red Sea'. I'm sure that there were infants who crossed the Red Sea, who were 'baptised' into Moses because of their parents decision to follow Moses.
I thus have no problems with infant baptism.
Well this has certainly opened my eyes a little. It is a very good point, Jewish children were circumcised at 8 days, and there is a lot in Romans about baptism being the replacement for circumcision (as I read it). Hmmm. Not entirely convinced but at last a worthwhile argument!
--------------------
"All the Fat belongs to the Lord"
-Leviticus 3:16b
Posts: 411 | From: England (all over) | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
But isn't baptism more closely related to the ritual baptisms practised by the Jews regularly whenever they needed ritual cleansing? That's why mikvahs and baptistries are similar...
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Churches which practise believer's baptism usually feel a need to have a service for babies, variously understood and described as Dedication, Presentation, Thanksgiving and Blessing.
Churches which practise infant baptism usually feel a need to have a service or rite for young people, such as Confirmation.
There seem to be recognised deficiencies in each form of baptism.
Churches which have dedication etc services don't regard them as anything like or to do with baptism, or at least I've never encountered such a congregation.
The ceremony is i) about giving thanks to God for the baby, and maybe the safe delivery and the health of the mother, and ii) recognising that the baby belongs to God and is entrusted to the parents to look after.
It's also introducing the child to the congregation, and the congregation may make promises to care for the child, enter its name on a 'cradle roll.' In BB churches the status of children in uncertain so this is important.
There may be a naming element to the ceremony.
Not only is it recognised that the baby belongs to God, but it is likely to be affirmed that God's love is already there for the child, even before it is looked for.
There will probably be a blessing of the child as well.
So quite a rich ceremony, and some clear overlap with infant baptism, and to an extent a making good the deficiencies of BB.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Most of the churches that practice IB (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) are or have been state churches in Christian countries where infant baptism would have been a normal thing at birth whether or not the parents intended to give the child a Christian upbringing.
Most of the churches that practice only BB have tended to be Protestant churches whose orientation is more that of a community than a public utility.
[...]
Therefore, it wouldn't be surprising if (to make up some numbers for the sake of argument ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ) 80% of those baptized in a BB church stayed in it, while 20% of those baptized as infants in an IB church stayed in it--since many of the parents baptizing their infants in the IB church never had any intention of being faithful members, but were doing this as a rite of passage (instead of a rite of faith).
One of the reasons the issue keeps on coming up is that there is very free movement between churches that practice infant baptism (Methodists, Anglicans, Presybeterians) & those that don't (Baptists, many independant and pentecostalist churches). At least there is round where I live. I guess most of the people in our Anglican church come form or have some experience of another tradition, and I think the same is true of local independant & baptist churches. And moving from one church to another is often not so much a conversion, or a decision to abandon one denomination for another, it is a decision on the same general level as choosing which individual church to go to.
On the whole most such Protestant churches agree with each other in doctrine and general approach to Christianity, but the baptism thing is one of the big exceptions.
So it is an issue that individual Christians are often confrnted with at some time in their life. So it never goes away.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ReVoltaire:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
OK, I'm going to sound like a hyper-calvinist or Jansenist or Augustimian or whatever, but I've noticed on this thread a lot of talk about our decision and our choice, but little sense of "You did not choose me; I chose you" or "God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world."
Hey! That's what I said. Only not so pretty ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It's what I said as well, only I was even less pretty: "salvation does not depend on the intelligence or knowledge of the saved person, and God is not bound by time."
So we have a sort of agreement on that - at least betweeen the Calvinists & the Catholics (& as a good Anglican I am of course both, so I get a double dose)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "non-Christian parents do it as a purely social ceremony therefore infant baptism isn't right" is a great big red herring and erroneous logic. By the same logic we should give up celebrating Christmas because of all the non-Christians who like singing carols.
No - the equivalent would be us going out and forcing people to sing carols even if they didn't want to!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "non-Christian parents do it as a purely social ceremony therefore infant baptism isn't right" is a great big red herring and erroneous logic. By the same logic we should give up celebrating Christmas because of all the non-Christians who like singing carols.
No - the equivalent would be us going out and forcing people to sing carols even if they didn't want to!
No, the equivalent would be forcing people to sing carols while being immersed. No, wait, the equivalent would be that if people sang carols, we'd count it as their kids singing even if the kids were too young to sing. No, hang on, it would be that people would have to believe in the carols they were singing or it wouldn't work. Or, um, wait, I'm sure it'll come to me in a minute...
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
strathclydezero
# 180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean:
This one always goes around in circles.
If you see baptism sacrementaly - i.e. as primarily God doing something - then it makes perfect sense to baptise infants.
If you see it symbolically - primarily as the baptised person doing something - then it makes more sense to leave till later.
So I throw the spanner in the works by arguing for a symbolic baptism of infants? (as is only right if you're presby )
--------------------
All religions will pass, but this will remain:
simply sitting in a chair and looking in the distance.
V V Rozanov
Posts: 3276 | From: The Near East | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
<Catholic girl in the churches of Christ finally looks at this thread and allows the questions to bubble up ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ...>
I thought baptism - immersion - was a symbolic death/burial/resurrection to new life. And a real one, as far as deep meanings are real.
So sprinkling an unknowing infant candidate fits where? What has an infant to die to?
And who told us we could back up a step and use a symbol of a symbol, sprinkling instead of immersion? Are we leaning on the water-and-the-ashes-of-a-heifer sprinkling that things set aside for the Lord underwent in the OT?
And what new life comes to the innocent as the result of the clergyman's actions and the parents' dedicated good intentions?
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
<snip>
I thought baptism - immersion - was a symbolic death/burial/resurrection to new life. And a real one, as far as deep meanings are real.
<snip>
And who told us we could back up a step and use a symbol of a symbol, sprinkling instead of immersion? Are we leaning on the water-and-the-ashes-of-a-heifer sprinkling that things set aside for the Lord underwent in the OT?
And what new life comes to the innocent as the result of the clergyman's actions and the parents' dedicated good intentions?
Well, it is symbolic, but it's not just a smbol, it's a sacrament.
You might want to check the Didache to see that baptism by means other than immersion was in practice in the early church.
For more comment on these, I refer you again to the UMC's By Water & the Spirit -- you might be surprised.
And as for the efficacy of infant baptism--take it up with the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
So sprinkling an unknowing infant candidate fits where? What has an infant to die to?
Death. We are all born dead, and subject to death and corruption. Baptism kills death in us and in it we are reborn to life.
quote:
And who told us we could back up a step and use a symbol of a symbol, sprinkling instead of immersion? Are we leaning on the water-and-the-ashes-of-a-heifer sprinkling that things set aside for the Lord underwent in the OT?
Well, of course, in the Orthodox church, we always immerse, except in those cases (e.g., hospital bed baptisms) where it's just not possible. But my two younger kids both got dunked. (The older two got sprinkled, because we were Lutheran at the time, but that's a different story.)
quote:
And what new life comes to the innocent as the result of the clergyman's actions and the parents' dedicated good intentions?
The new life that comes to the innocent babe is the same new life that comes to the most sinful adult; it is the life of Christ, bestowed by the grace of the Holy Spirit, through the sacrament of baptism.
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mimsey
Shipmate
# 3757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Mimsey wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I think that the reason I still hold so strongly to my infant baptism is that my parents and Godparents truly believed and kept those promises. I think that if my baptism had just been a formality, and if my parents and Godparents were not Christians, then I would want to be re-baptised at this point in my life. I don't, because I understand and believe that the promises as well as the sacrament were true and "worked" for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But would it not have 'worked' had your parents not believed? Would God have not kept his promises?
Carys, no, I don't think it would have "worked". It's the doctrine of intention, which I was taught about by the curate preparing me for confirmation. When we had the practice, he laid his hands on the head of each candidate and spoke the Bishop's words, and then said to us, "Now, why are you not confirmed?" The answer was apparently not "because you're not a Bishop" but "because you didn't intend to confirm me." (The same curate, now a vicar, made the same point at the practice wedding of my cousin last summer!) He then went on to say that we, too had to intend our promises when we underwent our real confirmation - and I think baptism is just the same.
--------------------
Certitude! Certitude! Sentiment! Joie! Paix!
Posts: 217 | From: Deepest darkest Suffolk | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
<Catholic girl in the churches of Christ finally looks at this thread and allows the questions to bubble up ...>
Let me guess...you grew up Catholic, then met churches-of-Christ people who said your infant baptism wasn't valid? (I used to be a churches-of-Christ person myself.)
quote:
I thought baptism - immersion - was a symbolic death/burial/resurrection to new life. And a real one, as far as deep meanings are real.
A symbolic death/burial/resurrection, but also a symbolic circumcision, and a symbolic exodus. And there's probably others. The meaning of baptism isn't limited to one single theology.
quote:
So sprinkling an unknowing infant candidate fits where? What has an infant to die to?
In the first century the repentance demanded (of the Jews, note) by Jesus, and later by the apostles, was not an individual repentance of being sinful people, though it was framed that way by Protestants much later on. It was, in fact, a national repentance of the fact that Israel had refused God's vocation for it to be the light of the world. John baptized people in the Jordan River...the river that the Hebrews had to cross in order to enter the promised land and become the nation of Israel. So John was inviting people to start over, to repent of their failure to follow God's vocation for Israel, to personally reenact the Exodus and be true Israelites.
For Jesus to have preached personal repentance for one's sinfulness wouldn't have made sense. Within Judaism there was already a way to atone for one's sins: take sacrifices to the temple. The whole preaching of repentance wasn't about individual slip-ups, but about the failure of Israel as a whole, and the call to repentance was about the repentance of Israel as a whole, a motif that can be found all over the place in the Old Testament.
Finally, note that in Acts 17 where Paul gives a sermon to the pagans, he doesn't command them to repent of personal sin as such; he doesn't tell them to stop lying, stealing, committing adultery, murdering, and other such sins. He tells them to repent of following false gods. It certainly wasn't because they didn't have those other sins or that they shouldn't repent of them. But those sins were dealt with within the church. Paul's invitation to the pagans to repent invited them to repent of following false gods and turn to the one true God.
To equate baptism with individual conviction of one's personal sins and repentance of them is an understanding divorced from the historical context within which Christianity began.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
strathclydezero
# 180
|
Posted
Wo-o-o-o-ow ..... Just a minute...
What does symbol(ism) mean? If baptism is just a symbol representing *something*, and as we've identified that *something* can be one or more of a whole list of things, then does it really matter at what point someone is baptised as long as it fits with the symbolism of *something*?
Surely the point of baptism is a symbolic gesture to help us live out faith is whatever form. In that when we take one of those symbolic meanings and demean others we are being exclusive and legalistic in faith (avoided the F word ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ), and it would be more in the true nature of God, in loving each other, to accept that different symbolic meanings exist and to respect each of them even if we don't personally subscribe to them.
[feeling all wishy washy and liberal now ]
--------------------
All religions will pass, but this will remain:
simply sitting in a chair and looking in the distance.
V V Rozanov
Posts: 3276 | From: The Near East | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Surely the point of baptism is a symbolic gesture to help us live out faith is whatever form.
I think those who believe in salvation through the sacraments are wrong,but baptism (or any sacrament) is more than just a symbol. I think this has already been covered in this thread.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
strathclydezero
# 180
|
Posted
Sacrament - who said anything about sacrament . In my tradition the word sacrament is used very loosely if at all. Baptism is not always a sacrament as the episcopal traditions understand it, it can be merely a symbolic gesture of our understanding of God.
--------------------
All religions will pass, but this will remain:
simply sitting in a chair and looking in the distance.
V V Rozanov
Posts: 3276 | From: The Near East | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Sacrament - who said anything about sacrament . In my tradition the word sacrament is used very loosely if at all. Baptism is not always a sacrament as the episcopal traditions understand it, it can be merely a symbolic gesture of our understanding of God.
I've never been brought up to think of baptism as a sacrament either. A symbolic act that we are requested by God to perform. And by our obedience we get whatever blessing obedience brings.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Kyralessa,
can you explain why you think that the biblcal repentance requirement was for the community rather then the individual? I've never heard that before.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Not a Care
Apprentice
# 1813
|
Posted
My home Baptist church had the Infant Dedication service this morning...it was charming. There was of course no baptizing going on, but it seemed to take the place of the family/church promise to raise and support the child in the faith that usually happens in infant baptisms.
I have sat through a thousand infant dedications and never realized the importance and weight of this promise until I had seen the "equivalent" promise made at an infant baptism. The large size of the church takes some away from it, since most people don't know everyone up there and won't have much of a role in the kid's life. But for the ones who do, it is important. I think BB churches should emphasize that commitment even more, since that is a key part of the rationale behind infant baptism, and it is a very worthy one.
Again, it comes down to the meaning of baptism for you. Does it symbolize the individual's acceptance into the church family? Or does it symbolize the personal acceptance of Christ's salvation?
I'm still interested in the first origins of baptism. Anyone?
--------------------
What did I just say?
Posts: 23 | From: Music City USA | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
can you explain why you think that the biblcal repentance requirement was for the community rather then the individual? I've never heard that before.
It is pretty clear that in the Old Testament the primary subject that is called to repentence is the people of Israel as a whole. I think the claim that this is true for the Church depends in part on how one reads the relationship of the two covenants. Since the 19th century some protestant theologians and exegetes (classic examples would be Schleiermacher, Harnack, Renan, etc.) have tended to argue that one of the key differences between the old covenant of the Law and the new covenant of the Gospel is that the former is addressed to a nation (Israel), while the latter is addressed to individuals. Catholic and Orthodox and some protestant theologians have tended to see a closer connection between Israel and the Church, so that the communal character of Israel's repentence is carried over in the New Covenant.
quote:
Not a Care wrote:
I'm still interested in the first origins of baptism. Anyone?
The origins of baptism are a bit murky. For a while, way back in the 20th century, people thought the answer was clear: Christians took the practice over from Jewish proselyte baptism, which, along with circumcision for males, was the normal way in which one converted to Judaism. Seems pretty clear. But there apparently is no evidence of a washing as part of the Jewish conversion ritual prior to the advent of Christianity, so later Jewish "baptisms" could well be an imitation/borrowing from the Christian practice. In any case, it is difficult to trace a straight line from Jewish baptism to Christian baptism -- or, at least, it is difficult to know which way the line runs.
John the Baptist's baptisms were also somewhat different from early Christian baptism, since they did not initiate one into God's people, but were rather a prophetic sign-act of repentence undertaken by those who were already members of Israel. The same seems to have been the case with the ritual washings practiced by groups like the Essenes. So in this case too it is difficult to trace a straight from John's practice to the early Christian one.
My own guess (and it is only that) is that baptism was a prophetic sign act that first Christians took over from the followers of John the Baptist, but which they invested with an almost wholly new meaning, making it an initiation and seeing its primary meaning in light of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. It is interesting to read what Peter says in Acts 2:38: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." We have JBap's theme of repentence and forgiveness, but we also have the additions of the name of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit.
I also tend to think that, despite a few mentions in the Gospels of Jesus' disciples baptizing (which I think were probably JBap-like baptisms of repentence), Christian baptism properly speaking is a post-Easter phenomenon.
An interesting (perhaps) side note: Paul's "paschal" theology of baptism (i.e. baptism as a participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus), which has become the standard interpretation in both East and West, was in fact something of an anomaly in the first few centuries. The key event for interpreting Christian baptism in the first centuries seems to have been not the cross and resurrection, but Jesus' own baptism: in baptism the Christian came to share in the messianic anointing that Jesus received in the Jordan river. In the Syrian tradition, they develop an interesting theology of baptism in which Jesus "deposits" in the Jordan the cloak of immortality that Adam and Eve lost in the Fall; in entering the waters of baptism, the initiate is re-clothed in immortality. Hints of this theology are still found in both RC and Orthodox rites, in the ceremony of clothing with a white garment. The Eastern liturgy has a particularly nice text at this point: “Grant to me a robe of light, O most merciful Christ, our God, who clothe yourself with light as with a garment.”
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
FBC,
I agree that there are calls to national repentance in the Hebrew Scriptures, but also there is the call of God to the individual. In the NT, there are loads of individual calls - John's baptism, Nicodemus etc...
As to the symbolism of reclothing, BBs do it but differently, though it's certainly done less often nowadays; my daughter was baptised in her dungarees and a sweatshirt ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ). The white garment is the "robe of righteousness" that Christ clothes us in as part of our identification with His death, resurrection, ascension, purification. It's worn before the baptism because we have already been cleansed, purified, robed...
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mo's is
Shipmate
# 4010
|
Posted
Is the difference between a more catholic / orthodox / anglican view and a more protestant view of baptism based in the fact that protestant type people believe more in a conversion experience and can name the time and date that they became christians whereas in a catholic etc tradition people are born into being christians and baptism confirms this as soon as possible.
or not?
--------------------
in a basket
Posts: 89 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
strathclydezero
# 180
|
Posted
Not - sorry. I'm definately not episcopal in any way, and yet I know not when I first believed.
--------------------
All religions will pass, but this will remain:
simply sitting in a chair and looking in the distance.
V V Rozanov
Posts: 3276 | From: The Near East | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
