homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Re-Baptism ? (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Re-Baptism ?
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
The FIRST essential is 'Making them a Disciple'. This involves obviously imparting Gospel information, (i.e. God was in Christ reconciling himself with the world and not holding their sins against them), but is not 'teaching all that Christ commanded', that would take a lifetime of discipleship to absorb properly. Baptism chronologically comes somewhere between hearing and responding to 'the gospel', and learning everything Christ taught and commanded.


OK friend. You could be a bit less strident about this - some of us here have a strong theological understanding of baptism which is different to yours. Typing in capital letters suggests that you're trying to lecture the rest of us in correct theology about baptism.

I respect your point of view, but simply underline that many many other Christians think differently and still base their understanding of baptism on NT passages.

Again, I'm not interested to start a fight with you on the bible passages, but there is clearly a line of thought which can be seen in the NT whereby someone becomes a believer and is (essentially) instantaneously baptised (eg the eunuch in Acts 8). With respect to the jailer in Acts 16, it appears that the baptism was not only instantaneous but also involved the whole household. It is not recorded whether they had any say in the matter.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, that there are a range of interpretations of this passage.

Fair enough to state and discuss your view, but the lecturing is rather unnecessary IMO.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
The FIRST essential is 'Making them a Disciple'. This involves obviously imparting Gospel information, (i.e. God was in Christ reconciling himself with the world and not holding their sins against them), but is not 'teaching all that Christ commanded', that would take a lifetime of discipleship to absorb properly. Baptism chronologically comes somewhere between hearing and responding to 'the gospel', and learning everything Christ taught and commanded.

That is certainly the way I'd look at it.

I'm no Greek scholar, but it's not just a question of punctuation. It seems that the main force of the imperative is certainly not on the "going" (as so often stressed by missionary speakers!) nor on the "baptising", but on the "making disciples" - although this is actually just one word, "discipling". Thus a literal translation could be something like "In your going, disciple all nations, baptising them ...". To me the "baptising" comes subsequent to the "discipling" rather than being of equal immediacy.

I'd see the imperative as "GO" the rest follows the going
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But -- am I right? -- baptism is a prerequisite for confirmation. You can't be confirmed until you're baptized. (The reason this is a Q is that we had to organize a snap baptism, in about 20 minutes, just before a confirmation. The bishop was all set to go, but then one of the confirmands revealed that he'd never been dipped. At this moment the Altar Guild felt that a paper cup would do, but instead we hauled out the big silver bowl...)

Well yes.. but also no. In the Anglican church (if not anywhere else) it is possible to be baptised and immediately afterwards confirmed. This doesn't normally happen because a bishop is needed for confirmation but not a baptism.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
You and me both, EM, although my theology these days would be somewhat at right-angles to both yours and HTB's - ie not off on a tangent from either but not running parallel ... (I was never good at geometry) ...*

If what L'Organist reports is the case then I have very serious misgivings.

It reminds me very much of what used to go on in the restorationist 'new churches'.

(* I'd still use the term 'evangelical' but in a more general way than I would have done at one time.)

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
If this Church is a HTB plant (presuming HTB means Holy Trinity Brompton), I would make contact with the local bishop. Re-baptisms are, as far as I know, unacceptable in the Church of England. k-mann
It strikes me that doing something about the 'church' in question is more important an issue than doing something about the 'person' involved.

If the church claims to come under the Spiritual Authority and Discipline of The CofE then it is obliged to operate in accordance with Cannon Law on issues concerning baptism.

If the individual decides to get himself baptised again, then that is entirely his affair. His confusion or lack of knowledge may result either from a poor spiritual education, or from personal lack of interest in spiritual matters concerning his salvation status as a child of God. Either way he has been given the freedom to live his 'life' for and with God or to throw it away against and without Him.

He clearly needs a lot of prayer support from family and friends. Advice too, if he will heed it.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
(* I'd still use the term 'evangelical' but in a more general way than I would have done at one time.)

I wouldn't and I don't. I still think we're not that far off from each other -esp. as I agree about the restorationist stuff (which I see making a comeback: the poor deluded souls think they're the first to go that way).
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd see the imperative as "GO" the rest follows the going

I don't have a commentary to hand, but I believe that the form of the Greek implies that you're "going" already, hence the force is "As you go, make disciples, baptising them ...". Perhaps Jesus thought that his disciples wouldn't need any encouragement to "go" (see also Acts 1:*) - sadly his assumption is rather contradicted in the early chapters of Acts!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
If the church claims to come under the Spiritual Authority and Discipline of The CofE then it is obliged to operate in accordance with Cannon Law on issues concerning baptism.

Great idea in theory, impossible to enforce in practice. Loads of CofE churches breach Canon law - many do every week when they don't abide by the 39 Articles, for example. (Now, tell me your church denounces papists and teaches Calvinism ...).

The evangelicals don't when there's no weekly communion, the Anglo Catholics don't when they use non prescribed forms of service. Baptism rites are presumably just as up for grabs as the other things.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
2. This act doesn't complete their faith journey, it is part of it. They are prayed for, hands are laid on, the Spirit's filling requested - that they might be sent out. Exclamation-Mark
Point taken and gratefully conceded. In my own experience, a physical manifestation of an 'anointing' of The Holy Spirit followed quite a few years after confirmation, (much dirty water having passed beneath the bridge), and even that TBTG has not only been a 'one off' experience.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Great idea in theory, impossible to enforce in practice. Loads of CofE churches breach Canon law - many do every week when they don't abide by the 39 Articles, for example. (Now, tell me your church denounces papists and teaches Calvinism ...).
Well, yes, of course, but . . . Cannon Law is a big stick to finally cudgel those who seriously step out of line on issues considered important enough to take it out and use it. In this case a few stiff words of warning from a Diocesan might do the trick, or at least put a shot across the bows of this HTB vessel.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I'm going to repeat what I said above: I witnessed a service in a Cathedral where several adults were dunked by full immersion. It was stated that some were being baptised and some were reaffirming.

But they were all dunked, I assume with the knowledge of the bishops and, well, some who now occupy senior posts in the hierarchy.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Great idea in theory, impossible to enforce in practice. Loads of CofE churches breach Canon law - many do every week when they don't abide by the 39 Articles, for example. (Now, tell me your church denounces papists and teaches Calvinism ...).
Well, yes, of course, but . . . Cannon Law is a big stick to finally cudgel those who seriously step out of line on issues considered important enough to take it out and use it. In this case a few stiff words of warning from a Diocesan might do the trick, or at least put a shot across the bows of this HTB vessel.
Surely all of Canon Law must be treated as having equal bearing? Some parts aren't more important than others - it's the law for goodness' sake.

If you adopt that kind of partiality it's no wonder that the CofE is getting itself stick up its own rear end.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
I'm going to repeat what I said above: I witnessed a service in a Cathedral where several adults were dunked by full immersion. It was stated that some were being baptised and some were reaffirming. But they were all dunked, I assume with the knowledge of the bishops and, well, some who now occupy senior posts in the hierarchy. Mr Cheesy
The outward sign of a newly received invisible grace in only some of them presumably. Hmmm. Difficult to argue that the double dunked were not re-baptised, I agree. A semantic obfuscation perhaps.

However since it is God himself who performs whatever He does at every valid, (on the believers part), baptism, it is probably difficult to fool God into actually doing it TWICE for anyone who God considers has already had enough of whatever God does at baptism.

So perhaps we shouldn't worry ourselves too much about those who want to 'have another go' for whatever reason.

I can't find any prohibition in scripture for being dunked multiple times. The incongruity of declaring oneself committed to Jesus Christ's cause and teaching but being so unsure of one's own commitment that one needs to repeatedly get dunked so as to convince oneself or worse, others, of one's own sincerity seems futile to my thinking though.

It kind of reminds me of Jesus' advice on letting one's yea mean yea and one's nay mean nay. Either you meant it first time or you didn't. If you didn't then what guarantee is there that you mean it sincerely this time and the next and the next ad infinitum.

I think that is partly what is intended when we say 'We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins'. Multiple baptisms are impracticable but what is wrong with a Mikvah if the cleansing aspect of ritual purity needs tangible expression for some who lack faith in their baptism as an infant. Sacraments are after all provided by God as physical aids to understanding of spiritual realities and it probably makes little difference to God if someone wants to be doubly clean. Though Jn. 13:8-10 might indicate otherwise.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Surely all of Canon Law must be treated as having equal bearing? Some parts aren't more important than others - it's the law for goodness' sake. ExclamationMark
Yes but all rules don't have to be immediately enforced. We are not a Zero Tolerance Church but neither then are we Laissez faire. There is room for discretion and reasonable compromise where possible.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
[QUOTE]I think that is partly what is intended when we say 'We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins'.

The one here does not refer to "incidences" but to mode - ie water and intent are required. It doesn't therefore shut the door on rebaptism (it can't be a proof text anyway) but any secondary immersion must be over carefully considered.

I often wonder whether a broader reading of "baptism" is intended in some cases where we speak of being "baptised into." If we take the original context as immersing something, then we are to ne immersed in Christ. Water may be a sign of that but it doesn't make you anything nor is it essential - circumcise the heart not the body. (Be very wary of insisting on practices that might give the impression of being salvific in and of themselves)

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Surely all of Canon Law must be treated as having equal bearing? Some parts aren't more important than others - it's the law for goodness' sake. ExclamationMark
Yes but all rules don't have to be immediately enforced. We are not a Zero Tolerance Church but neither then are we Laissez faire. There is room for discretion and reasonable compromise where possible.
But who gets to decide where the line is drawn?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
(* I'd still use the term 'evangelical' but in a more general way than I would have done at one time.)

I wouldn't and I don't. I still think we're not that far off from each other -esp. as I agree about the restorationist stuff (which I see making a comeback: the poor deluded souls think they're the first to go that way).
I'd agree with that - with the caveat that 'evangelical' is becoming an increasingly slippery term to pin down ...

One of the things that horrified me when I encountered some HTB influenced CofE stuff after some years without meeting many people from that particular stable was how far they had moved towards the kind of 'restorationist' thinking I was escaping from ...

I felt like someone staggering up a slippery path after an encounter with dragons saying, 'Don't go down there! Dragons!'

Only to be told not to be so silly as they all trooped past and down the slippery path from whence I'd come ...

On the canonical thing in the CofE ... yes, absolutely. The rules are broken at both ends of the spectrum all the time. Nobody bats an eyelid ...

On the multiple dunkings and wettings ... I can remember us getting into some pretty convoluted hermeneutical territory when trying to work out what was meant by 'washings' (plural) in Hebrews 6:2 (translated as 'baptisms' in some versions.

I was never that convinced ...

There was all sorts of theorising about it being 'Baptism in Water' and 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit' (Pentecostal style) ... and much else besides.

http://biblehub.com/hebrews/6-2.htm

'Washings', 'Cleansing rites' ... 'baptisms' - you pays your money for your translation and you makes your choice.

I can live with a degree of ambiguity about this as with much else besides.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Surely all of Canon Law must be treated as having equal bearing? Some parts aren't more important than others - it's the law for goodness' sake. ExclamationMark
Yes but all rules don't have to be immediately enforced. We are not a Zero Tolerance Church but neither then are we Laissez faire. There is room for discretion and reasonable compromise where possible.
But who gets to decide where the line is drawn?
Increasingly, the individual minister or individual congregation as far as I can see ...

There are those who claim that the CofE is increasingly Congregational in all but name ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was christened as an infant and baptised by immersion (in the Thames) as an earnest young evangelical, so I completely 'get' where St Gwladys is coming from.

The 'make a commitment' thing is an evangelical jargon term for deciding for oneself or making a deliberate, considered and intentional step to follow Christ.

Fair enough. I just wish they wouldn't use such an awful, hackneyed and clichéd phrase and expect everyone else to understand what they mean by it.

It can also lead to a kind of 'easy-believism' thing where you stick your hand up in a meeting or 'go down the front' or whatever the particular 'decisionism' tactic happens to be.

'What do you mean he's not a Christian? He made a commitment when he was 14 ...'

That sort of thing.

I understand what is intended by such terms but no longer find them particularly helpful as short-hand descriptions of consciously finding faith.

I certainly agree that we should be 'intentional' and like St Gwladys deplore the widespread practice of having infants baptised and then never bothering which church or any 'intentional' practice of faith thereafter.

That said, I'm equally uncomfortable with attempts to assess who is 'in' or 'out' judged by responses at evangelistic rallies or how many people 'prayed the sinner's prayer' and such like malarkey.

The SA used to baptise infants and,if we were to reintroduce the sacraments that;s how I would have it again.
We are not a reformed Church but are firmly in the Catholic tradition. I would be unhappy about having believer's baptism only.

We do swear people in as 'soldiers'under the flag which does provide an opportunity of personal witness to the saving grace of Christ and a desire to be identified with the local church and with the wider SA as part of the Body of Christ.

I hear you loud and clear about the language of making personal commitments and giving your heart to Jesus (not a Scriptural phrase), etc, etc.

This is why one of the SA's articles of faith clearly states:

"We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends on continued, obedient faith in Christ."

We would also say that "To be saved is far more than to receive a personal new life: we are part of God's new society, his people called to convey the good news to the world. The Church is the family of those who have been born again by the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit and who, together, are the people of God in the world.' SA Handbook of Doctrine, 'The Process of Salvation' p 152

I would definitely say the conversion of someone must also mean incorporation into the church and must be tested and not rely merely on the repetition of a prayer.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Sure, and I wouldn't expect anything less from you, Mudfrog.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not against 'conversionism' in the Bebbington Quadrilateral sense ...

I think whatever Christian tradition we're talking about then we're looking for 'intentionality' and a conforming (for want of a better word) to Christ - a turning from sin and a pursuit of righteousness.

That doesn't have to be expressed in pietistic terms in a cloying or overly romanticised way - although it can lead that way.

Nor is it some kind of dispassionate, unengaged Spock-like acceptance of propositional truths without any 'oomph' or sense of joy ...

I do agree with the old Scottish saying that, 'It's better felt than tell't ...'

But it isn't down to subjectivity either - although I would say that it is possible to 'recognise it when we see it' for the 'wind bloweth where it listeth ...'

However we cut it, there has to be a 'there' there.

A divine spark, a twinkle ... a 'this is that' a something ... or rather, a Someone ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Thanks Mr G.
BTW your inbox is full [Smile]

What a popular boy you are.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
The one here does not refer to "incidences" but to mode - ie water and intent are required. It doesn't therefore shut the door on rebaptism (it can't be a proof text anyway) but any secondary immersion must be over carefully considered. ExclamationMark
Notwithstanding my agreement on the 'Mode' comment, the appropriateness of Baptism was argued over by the church in cases where, under persecution believers recanted to save their lives. It was finally decided that such believers, driven by extreme as they were, could be accepted back into the fold without re-baptism. All that was required was a reaffirmation of vows, not an actual baptism. In this sense at least the Nicene Creed certainly tried to establish the precedent of ONE baptism being necessarily required to establish one's credentials as a Christian.

The baptism referred to in the Nicene Creed however is not exclusively adult by immersion because by the time the Nicene Creed was formulated the church had been paedobaptising by effusion alongside adults by immersion for nigh on 3 centuries already.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Thanks Mr G.
BTW your inbox is full [Smile]

What a popular boy you are.

No, just bad at clearing out old messages ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Cannon Law is a big stick to finally cudgel those who seriously step out of line on issues considered important enough to take it out and use it.

I would have thought that Cannon Law is a big gun rather than a big stick.


Thank you, thank you very much. I’ll be here all week.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
OK friend. You could be a bit less strident about this - some of us here have a strong theological understanding of baptism which is different to yours. Typing in capital letters suggests that you're trying to lecture the rest of us in correct theology about baptism. Mr Cheesy
My use of capitals was intended to emphasise the fact that 'discipling' was the leading part of the great commission, not baptising nor teaching. They followed on from 'discipling' and are logical concomitants to discipling not prerequisites.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I would have thought that Cannon Law is a big gun ...

I had the same thought.

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
posted by k-mann
quote:
If this Church is a HTB plant (presuming HTB means Holy Trinity Brompton), I would make contact with the local bishop. Re-baptisms are, as far as I know, unacceptable in the Church of England.


Yes, HTB does refer to Holy Trinity Brompton.

There is a real problem with using the local structures of the CofE in this situation, which is that plants such as this are there at the invitation of the bishop.

Yes, it does make a shudder go down the spine. Yes, there are worrying (faint, I hope) echoes of what goes on with cults.

Yes, in theory HTB are anglican, Church of England, recognise the authority of CofE structures - bishops, archdeacons, etc: but theory is just what it is, because on the ground there are far too many instances of plants running rings around bishops who have invited them in, or reneging on promises given to existing congregations, etc, etc, etc. Goodness knows, there have been repeated threads on this and other sites about people being alienated, driven out and used - to give 2 names that occur straight away: St Thomas Heigham (Norfolk) and St Sepulchre-without-Newgate. In both cases people have been lied to and manipulated (in the case of St Thomas they admitted having lied in the pages of the Church Times, no less) and they've run a coah and horses through agreements and undertakings.

I find it very worrying that not a single bishop seems prepared to bring these people into line and stop them behaving as they do. And we have an Archbishop who comes from HTB, who thinks it is all good, who promotes it.

It is a law unto itself and a church-within-a-church and I, for one, find that very, very disturbing.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I gave [this young man] information on several local churches but he showed no interest in going to any of them – in fact a distinct lack of curiosity about all of them.

[...]
He seems to spend most evenings involved with something to do with the church, to the extent he said his mother was going on at him about never being at home.

The thing that really puzzles is that he chose to be confirmed at 15, if wasn't something foisted on him; and as part of his confirmation (as at all) there is the reaffirmation of baptismal promises, so where is the perceived "problem" about lack of personal consent?

I know his parents (mother especially) are pretty anxious about the situation; as a churchgoing family they feel that their son is being taken over, a situation not helped by the fact that none of the family were told about the re-baptism until after it had taken place. An even greater concern is that as a recent graduate he is now looking for his first "proper" job but is refusing to look at anything that isn't within reach of either this church he is going to at the moment (which is not in what most would consider a major city) or another HTB branch and, with his degreee being rather industry specific, this is likely to cause major problems with him getting work in his chosen field.

What a mess.

In the long term it doesn't have to be a mess.

This young man doesn't need his parents' approval; he's asserting his independence, which is a good thing. If he's a recent graduate he probably isn't in line for a great job yet anyway (although if he's a desirable candidate for an office-based role I presume he could go to London and kill several birds with one stone?). Most graduates don't even end up working in the field they graduated in.

My guess is that sooner or later this earnest religiosity will be replaced by the busyness of a professional job, serial monogamy and world weariness, in the usual fashion.

Moreover, I've read that most people come out of 'cults' after a fairly short time, and continue their lives without too much bother. So one day this interlude with its controversial baptisms might make for amusing dinner party tales for this guy. Or material for his creative genius. But it doesn't have to ruin his life!

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
The problem with that is of course that it depends entirely upon how one reads the passages in particular. I am convinced that Acts 8:14-17 refers to confirmation, as has the Church up through the centuries.k-mann
As with other Biblically based concepts, (such as women receiving communion), Confirmation is not specifically named or written of, as such, in scripture.
Which is exactly the point at issue. The person claimed that it wasn't mentioned in the Bible, yet that depends entirely upon how one reads the Bible and on how one views the Bible in the first place. As for the first point, it is true that the word 'confirmation' is not found in Scripture (AFAIK), but the content of confirmation, the giving of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands and prayer, is most certainly right there in Acts 8. It even states that the Apostles had to come themselves.

As to for the second point, we have to ask if we are to use Scripture as an 'independent' document read 'independently' (as no one really does) or within a tradition.

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
RdrEmCofE : We attribute far too much importance to 'baptism'. St. Paul could recall the names of very few of those he baptised. Not because he had lost count but because he baptised very few and did not consider it the most important aspect of 'being a follower of Jesus Christ 'We are not sent to baptise but to preach the gospell|1 Cor.1:17.

RdrEmCofE They followed on from 'discipling' and are logical concomitants to discipling not prerequisites.

I really think, RdrEmCofE, you are flogging a dead horse . The command to make disciples in Matthews 28 involves baptism and teaching. The point your critics were making is that your comment “We are not sent to baptise but to preach the gospel” seem to be in contradiction to the words of Jesus, which specifically mention baptism and instruction as components in the process of discipling. It would, of course, also involve preaching and other things, but they are not identified by Christ on that occasion. In terms of authority can't we agree that Christ trumps Paul?

As I understand ‘concomitant”, by the way, it is a phenomenon that goes along the phenomenon being discussed, and is, therefore, separate from it. Baptism, by contrast, is part of the phenomenon of ‘making disciples” and not distinct from it. Baptising is neither prerequisite nor concomitant because it is part of the things itself as understood by Christ in the gospel.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Some years ago I did some reading round on this, and was quite surprised to find that similar dilemmas over infant v believers' baptism go right back at least as far as the fourth century, and possibly earlier, homing in on more or less exactly the same issues as those that vex people today. It was also clear that this is a doctrinal circle that has never been squared. I'm fairly certain it never will be.

However one chops it up theologically, and whichever side one ultimately comes down on, there's always an important bit that doesn't quite fit in the tin.

Were there people in (say) 900 AD who were credobaptist? Where were they hiding? I've not heard of them. Do you mean to say there was a vexation as LATE as the 4th century? For of course it was only in the 4th century that the incarnation circle was squared, and of course the Trinitarian one. And on both of those instances, there are bits that don't fit in the tin. This is why we need a church with the authority to make decisions one way or the other.

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
We attribute far too much importance to 'baptism'. St. Paul could recall the names of very few of those he baptised. Not because he had lost count but because he baptised very few and did not consider it the most important aspect of 'being a follower of Jesus Christ'. "We are not sent to baptise but to preach the gospel" 1 Cor.1:17.

I think you are grossly misrepresenting Paul's point here. It's not that baptism wasn't important, but that it wasn't HIS ministry. As far as I know he does not link his particular charism (preaching the gospel) with being a follower of Jesus Christ. He is quite plain in another place that different people have different jobs in the church.

Peter of course, when asked "what should we do?" responded "repent and be baptised, every one of you."

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
You are quite right, of course. I overstated my case somewhat. The point was valid though that inconsistency and confusion are not limited or peculiar to the circumstances surrounding only infant baptism, the same confusion and inconsistency applies to ALL baptism whether it is administered to cognisant adults or the children of believing parents.

Neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics have any confusion whatever about infant baptism. It is only credobaptists looking in from the outside who see confusion. I can assure you we have none.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
After all, Jesus didn't say, "Go and baptise, making disciples" although some Christians might see this that as the "proper" way to operate. Or am I making too much of this?

I'm not at all sure what you're driving at. Please explain further.

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And the answer I received was that confirmation "didn't count" since it wasn't mentioned in the Bible, and that only true "believer's" baptism was the way into the Christian family.

The problem with that is of course that it depends entirely upon how one reads the passages in particular. I am convinced that Acts 8:14-17 refers to confirmation, as has the Church up through the centuries.
No, the church up through the centuries has not. Because confirmation has not existed up through the centuries, at least not everywhere. St. Vincent of Lerins would not be pleased with your overgeneralization.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582

 - Posted      Profile for Higgs Bosun   Email Higgs Bosun   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

It is a law unto itself and a church-within-a-church and I, for one, find that very, very disturbing.

Not unlike The Society, for instance.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

It is a law unto itself and a church-within-a-church and I, for one, find that very, very disturbing.

I'm not sure there is much point in being disturbed - it seems to me to be an inevitable feature of the Church of England - which is basically 5 (or more) sub-churches who are in an uneasy truce with each other, I think mostly because they recognise that they'd all be worse off if someone upset the applecart and destroyed the whole thing.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
The command to make disciples in Matthews 28 involves baptism and teaching. The point your critics were making is that your comment “We are not sent to baptise but to preach the gospel” seem to be in contradiction to the words of Jesus, which specifically mention baptism and instruction as components in the process of discipling.
Of course it does, but St Paul was of the Apostolic opinion that baptism should not be a divisive rite causing sectarian tendancies. Getting it 'right' using the 'right words' and performed by the 'right people' was dismissed by him as 'boasting' and divisive. He suggested that any who do so claiming they were properly dunked by properly qualified people should quit their boasting and boast only of what God has done for Them. 1 Cor. 1:31.

quote:
It would, of course, also involve preaching and other things, but they are not identified by Christ on that occasion.

In terms of authority can't we agree that Christ trumps Paul?

No. Not if you value the integrity and inspiration of scripture. I don't see any conflict between Paul's or Jesus baptismal policy. Both of them left it mostly to other people to do. In Jesus case he left the whole dunking thing entirely to other people to do. Jn. 1:33, Jn. 4:2. Jesus only baptises with the only baptism that really matters. The baptism in The Holy Spirit. Jn. 1:33.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Were there people in (say) 900 AD who were credobaptist? Where were they hiding? I've not heard of them. Do you mean to say there was a vexation as LATE as the 4th century? For of course it was only in the 4th century that the incarnation circle was squared, and of course the Trinitarian one. And on both of those instances, there are bits that don't fit in the tin. This is why we need a church with the authority to make decisions one way or the other. ...

No. I got the impression that this was an issue that had gradually died out as a matter that anyone asked any questions about once both east and west were definitely in their separate post-Roman eras. But it wasn't that there were two factions, paedo and credo baptists, or that there was much argument or as you call it 'a vexation'. Is was more that some people seem to have preferred one practice, some the other and delaying baptism until years of discretion just gradually died out.

Because it wasn't treated as that controversial a subject - unlike the definitions of Trinitarian orthodoxy - there didn't seem to have been a tradition of people throwing anathemas at each other either way. More of an issue in the early church was whether being baptised too soon was risky because some people believed that once you'd been baptised, if you committed any sin, however small, it couldn't be forgiven any more. So some people delayed baptism until they thought they were dying - but then what if you then died suddenly before you had been able to be baptised?


Incidentally, RdrEmCofE and K-Mann there was a flurry of excitement among some neo-pentecostals/charismatics about 45 years ago as to whether confirmation was a sort of frozen liturgical survival of a separate baptism of the Holy Spirit, with citations of Acts 8 etc but it turns out that it isn't.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

My view is that Jesus, in speaking to Jewish disciples, and Matthew, including this saying in a for-Jews-Gospel, was not talking about Christian initiation in the first place; he was referring to a Jewish washing that would have been dine using the Shema formula.

As with the Passover meal, Jesus changed the formula and instead of immersing/washing in the name of 'The Lord our God is one', it was now to be done in the name of the triune God

The making of disciples of all nations speaks of Jews in all nations as seen on the Day of Pentecost where 3000 Jewish people became disciples, immersed (presumably in the temple ritual washing facilities) in the name of Jesus (as shorthand for the name of the F, S and HS).

I think the problem with baptism - infant OR adult - has always been its once-for-all application; my contention is that there are many, many people who believe they are Christians because a priest sprinkled them as a baby. Now I am aware that maybe the church doesn't quite see it that way but the general public do; and where some Shipmates complain about the evangelicals' "sinners'prayer", the irony is that the Christening 'event' is just as trivial if not followed by true discipleship, spiritual formation and growth in grace and holiness.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I don't see any conflict between Paul's or Jesus baptismal policy. Both of them left it mostly to other people to do. In Jesus case he left the whole dunking thing entirely to other people to do. Jn. 1:33, Jn. 4:2. Jesus only baptises with the only baptism that really matters. The baptism in The Holy Spirit. Jn. 1:33.

I think that's where The Salvation Army might place itself.
We do not administer any ritual sacraments but we are part of the Church that does.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I don't see any conflict between Paul's or Jesus baptismal policy. Both of them left it mostly to other people to do. In Jesus case he left the whole dunking thing entirely to other people to do. Jn. 1:33, Jn. 4:2. Jesus only baptises with the only baptism that really matters. The baptism in The Holy Spirit. Jn. 1:33.

I think that's where The Salvation Army might place itself.
We do not administer any ritual sacraments but we are part of the Church that does.

All the Salvationists I have spoken to about this have used one of the other denominations for baptism.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I don't see any conflict between Paul's or Jesus baptismal policy. Both of them left it mostly to other people to do. In Jesus case he left the whole dunking thing entirely to other people to do. Jn. 1:33, Jn. 4:2. Jesus only baptises with the only baptism that really matters. The baptism in The Holy Spirit. Jn. 1:33.

I think that's where The Salvation Army might place itself.
We do not administer any ritual sacraments but we are part of the Church that does.

All the Salvationists I have spoken to about this have used one of the other denominations for baptism.
Indeed, I was baptised at 18 in a Baptist church.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
From time to time, St Sanity's baptises those from a nearby SA congregation - as well as welcoming them at Eucharists.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
From time to time, St Sanity's baptises those from a nearby SA congregation - as well as welcoming them at Eucharists.

It is sadly a myth amongst the wider Church - and in the minds of some Salvationists too - that we don't agree with the sacraments. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We allow all our members to partake where and whenever they can, and we might also suggest that we have actually de-ritualised the Lord's Supper and, where there is intent on the part of the provider, actually administer the sacrament in our feeding of the poor.

[ 03. January 2018, 09:18: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
After all, Jesus didn't say, "Go and baptise, making disciples" although some Christians might see this that as the "proper" way to operate. Or am I making too much of this?

I'm not at all sure what you're driving at. Please explain further.
I did, further upthread! What I'm driving at is that - as far as my limited knowledge of NT Greek takes me - is that there is only one imperative in the Great Commission, which is "make disciples". It is not a case of there being three commands, i.e. "go", "make disciples" and "baptise"; and it certainly isn't a command of "go and make disciples by baptising them" This is not to say that baptism isn't an important part of discipleship of course; rather that the baptising is a consequence of the "making disciples".

Likewise, as has bee mentioned by others, I take Peter's command to "repent and be baptised" as firstly a command to repent, and consequentially a command to be baptised - you couldn't reverse the order!

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Incidentally, RdrEmCofE and K-Mann there was a flurry of excitement among some neo-pentecostals/charismatics about 45 years ago as to whether confirmation was a sort of frozen liturgical survival of a separate baptism of the Holy Spirit, with citations of Acts 8 etc but it turns out that it isn't.
Quiteright, of course. The Baptism in The Holy Spirit obviously occurs when and only when God decides, not at the mere behest of any ecclesiastical authority. Though it is perfectly permissible, as far as God is concerned, for an ecclesiastical authority to request God to do so, and God, being God, will be disinclined to withhold his 'good gifts' from those who ask in faith. Obviously the scriptural record of the Apostolic laying on of hands has some reason for being there in scripture though. What do you think its purpose might be? Why was it considered worthy of inclusion?

It would seem, from scripture, that reception of the Holy Spirit is intimately linked, not essentially with water baptism, or the laying on of hands, but with 'hearing the gospel with faith'. Gal. 2:2.

Gospel understanding with Faith is the key, and who canknow for certain if he has either?

This is exactly why 'we do not know whence it comes or whither it goes' but we 'hear the sound of it'.

I'll leave the reader to figure out any metaphorical meanings implied by 'hearing' and 'sound' of 'the spirit', which was the exact same Greek word as is translated 'Wind' in Jn. 3:8.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
of course. The Baptism in The Holy Spirit obviously occurs when and only when God decides, not at the mere behest of any ecclesiastical authority. Though it is perfectly permissible, as far as God is concerned, for an ecclesiastical authority to request God to do so...

I so agree with this.
I have never agreed with the idea that Pentecost was the day the Holy Spirit was given to the church with the inference that 'the church' then transmits him at will to whomever she decides can 'have him', as it were.

The Spirit is not possessed by the church as a resource to be given out like some equipment out of a store cupboard. HE is God who moves where he wills and everyone who comes to faith in Christ receives him directly from the Father and the Son by grace through faith.

The experience of grace requires no mediation other than that of Christ - helpful though the prayers of the church, formularised and ritualised in Confirmation, might be.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
I think the problem with baptism - infant OR adult - has always been its once-for-all application; my contention is that there are many, many people who believe they are Christians because a priest sprinkled them as a baby.
I agree this is a major problem with infant baptism which the Churches which practice it have never properly addressed. However anyone claiming that those baptised as adults, ALL go on to be 'believing and faithful disciples', for the rest of their lives, would be delusional. So the problem is not only restricted to infants.

quote:
Now I am aware that maybe the church doesn't quite see it that way but the general public do; and where some Shipmates complain about the evangelicals' "sinners'prayer", the irony is that the Christening 'event' is just as trivial if not followed by true discipleship, spiritual formation and growth in grace and holiness.
Quite so!

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


Likewise, as has bee mentioned by others, I take Peter's command to "repent and be baptised" as firstly a command to repent, and consequentially a command to be baptised - you couldn't reverse the order!

You state this as if it is obvious. But, of course, it is possible to read the texts without the temporal aspect - and to see it saying that both are necessary rather than that one comes before the other.

Personally I find the assertions in this thread really sad. Rather than discuss beliefs and have a reasonable discussion, some have simply reverted to insisting that a particular point of view is correct.

But there you go - never discuss Baptism with a Baptist.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
I think the problem with baptism - infant OR adult - has always been its once-for-all application; my contention is that there are many, many people who believe they are Christians because a priest sprinkled them as a baby.
I agree this is a major problem with infant baptism which the Churches which practice it have never properly addressed. However anyone claiming that those baptised as adults, ALL go on to be 'believing and faithful disciples', for the rest of their lives, would be delusional. So the problem is not only restricted to infants.
You are quite right on both points, of course - although for some people it may be that the recollection of their public baptism is a spur to maintaining their faith.

One might, I think, draw a parallel with weddings: everyone present witnesses the couple pledging their troth and sincerely hopes that the marriage will last, even though they are well aware that it might not. Equally, the fact of having made a public commitment may just help to keep the couple together.

I think the biggest problems that folk like myself have with infant baptism are any suggestion that "baptism makes the child into a Christian", linked to the fact that the child cannot declare faith for itself.

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


Likewise, as has bee mentioned by others, I take Peter's command to "repent and be baptised" as firstly a command to repent, and consequentially a command to be baptised - you couldn't reverse the order!

You state this as if it is obvious. But, of course, it is possible to read the texts without the temporal aspect - and to see it saying that both are necessary rather than that one comes before the other.

Personally I find the assertions in this thread really sad. Rather than discuss beliefs and have a reasonable discussion, some have simply reverted to insisting that a particular point of view is correct.

But there you go - never discuss Baptism with a Baptist.

I'm sorry, I think that is unfair. As it happens, I was brought up as an Anglican and came to my current position through conviction. And I am trying to explain that position logically and reasonably, over and against some people who have said they literally cannot understand it find it. In both my present pastoral and previous positions I believe I have been well-regarded for fostering ecumenical understanding.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
The Spirit is not possessed by the church as a resource to be given out like some equipment out of a store cupboard. HE is God who moves where he wills and everyone who comes to faith in Christ receives him directly from the Father and the Son by grace through faith.
Agreed!

Allow me however to indulge my pedantic aspergeryness to point out that The Holy Spirit is not actually a 'He'. She is not actually an 'It' either, nor is 'It' a 'She' strictly speaking. (Though I think I read somewhere that The Holy Spirit is referred to in scripture in Hebrew and Greek feminine terms).

Maybe that is why we men find the Holy Spirit the least understandable 'person' of the Trinity.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm sorry, I think that is unfair. As it happens, I was brought up as an Anglican and came to my current position through conviction. And I am trying to explain that position logically and reasonably, over and against some people who have said they literally cannot understand it find it. In both my present pastoral and previous positions I believe I have been well-regarded for fostering ecumenical understanding.

OK, but presumably you can see how it looks when two of you are double-decking posts where you "state the obvious".

It isn't obvious. It is a minority position held by a very small number of people that only makes sense in your specific religious context.

Fair enough, it is what you believe. But a very large number of Christians look to the model of OT circumscision to understand baptism - and in that context, Baptists " stating the obvious" about Baptism sounds meaningless to most other Christians.

The implication of your assertion is that yours is the only logical position on Baptism. That's far from being true.

[ 03. January 2018, 10:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools