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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Re-Baptism ? (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Re-Baptism ?
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It was the late 1980s in a sectarian place where ecumenical efforts were highly publicised. It would have done the ecumenical movement no favours whatever.

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

Posts: 8210 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think I generally agree Mudfrog. Hence I can't really see that it makes a difference about which language one uses in these situations. The important part is that one is asserting that the thing (ie baptism) is being done as part of the religion of the triune deity - rather than any other religion or deity.

But then I can't really see how it logically follows that the formulation must be "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" if one follows through with this thought. If the intention is to, in some way, cleave the action with the trinitarian deity then surely it doesn't make a whole lot of difference if one says "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" or "Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier" or any other use of biblical titles for the persons of the godhead. Surely the implication of your above statement is that "in the name of" needs to be in the context of worship of the correct deity rather than using the correct form of words.

I think, for reasons that flow on from the idea that name = essence and character:

Creator, redeemer and Sustainer are 'job descriptions' not attributes of personality. We have to believe that God is as he has revealed - someone we can have relationship with.
'The Creator' could be an impersonal force; whereas Jesus taught us specifically to think of God the Father as 'Abba' - not Daddy, but 'Dear Father' .

Other religions might also want to claim that their god is Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier as well. But which Creator? Which Redeemer...?

To have to approach God merely as 'Creator' takes away the relationship of me as God's adopted child, a co-heir with Christ.

It's not a question alone of correct identity, but of relationship.

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

Posts: 8210 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
If a 'vengeful' (where is that at all in Scripture?)
Rom. 3:5, 12:19, Deut. 32:35, 41, 43, Ps. 58:10, 94:1, 99:8, 149:7, Isa. 34:8, 35:4, 47:3, and 21 others (should I go on)

Isa. 61:2 (For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come).
Which according to Luke 4:18-20 Jesus deliberately left out of his own Ministry statement.

"he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.

He could have gone on to read.
quote:
"To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God;" Isa. 61:2a.
But Jesus obviously considered it inappropriate to do so, and so curtailed the quotation from Isaiah.

--------------------
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: 94 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
Creator, redeemer and Sustainer are 'job descriptions' not attributes of personality. We have to believe that God is as he has revealed - someone we can have relationship with.
'The Creator' could be an impersonal force; whereas Jesus taught us specifically to think of God the Father as 'Abba' - not Daddy, but 'Dear Father' .

Not so sure that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are actually 'attributes' either. Caring, nurturing, forgiving, kind, generous, faithful, patient etc. are among the many attributes of God that scripture provides us with describing God's character. Father is not so much an attribute as a designation. Son is not an attribute either, it is more of a noun indicating descendance. 'Holy Spirit' is a noun, not an adjective describing an attribute of the Holy Spirit.

Begetter, Savour and Provider would supply the exact same basic threefold information regarding the nature of the relationship endowment the baptised have received or are about to enter, depending on our limited temporal perspective.

--------------------
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: 94 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I think your literalist reading of that Great Commission command has inadvertently led you into misguided sacralisation of an otherwise straightforward visible, physical and verbal declaration of God's Grace toward underserving sinners, enacted in the metaphor or physical parable of baptism.

If that's what you think, then I'd submit your thinking is based on invalid assumptions about what I believe.

--------------------
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: 2654 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
If a 'vengeful' (where is that at all in Scripture?)
Rom. 3:5, 12:19, Deut. 32:35, 41, 43, Ps. 58:10, 94:1, 99:8, 149:7, Isa. 34:8, 35:4, 47:3, and 21 others (should I go on)

Isa. 61:2 (For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come).
Which according to Luke 4:18-20 Jesus deliberately left out of his own Ministry statement.

"he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.

He could have gone on to read.
quote:
"To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God;" Isa. 61:2a.
But Jesus obviously considered it inappropriate to do so, and so curtailed the quotation from Isaiah.

Hi, yes I do get that.
NT (Bishop Tom) Wright preached a while ago about the wrath of God and he said

quote:
Face it: to deny God’s wrath is, at bottom, to deny God’s love. When God sees humans being enslaved – and do please go and see the film Amazing Grace as soon as you get the chance – if God doesn’t hate it, he is not a loving God. (It was the sneering, sophisticated set who tried to make out that God didn’t get angry about that kind of thing, and whom Wilberforce opposed with the message that God really does hate slavery.) When God sees innocent people being bombed because of someone’s political agenda, if God doesn’t hate it, he isn’t a loving God. When God sees people lying and cheating and abusing one another, exploiting and grafting and preying on one another, if God were to say, ‘never mind, I love you all anyway’, he is neither good nor loving. The Bible doesn’t speak of a God of generalized benevolence. It speaks of the God who made the world and loves it so passionately that he must and does hate everything that distorts and defaces the world and particularly his human creatures.


Full transcript here

I don't want a wrathful, vengeful God either - if that means he's mean, vicious, ill-tempered Henry VIII-like and unpredictably unkind.
That is what some people have twisted vengeance and wrath to mean. But these attributes of God are not emotional, they are positional.

The only illustration I can come up with is from our law courts when we talk about prisoners being 'detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.'
I don't think it gives Her Majesty one moment of pleasure.

I've heard people write about 'the full wrath of the Law' but it doesn't mean that as they stand in court the judge, in pronouncing sentence yells and screams and uses his fists against the prisoner, all the while feeling rage and uncontrolled anger.

That is how I believe God expresses wrath and vengeance. It's measured, proportionate, considered and without emotion and lack of self-control.

It is such a caricature to suggest God is worldly angry and filled with revenge; but wjat I would suggest is that God's hatred of sin is exactly why the remedy had to be a cross and no just a preaching tour followed by quiet retirement into old age.

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

Posts: 8210 | 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   Reply with quote 
Sorry, some odd words in the last paragraph or two tat I am not sure what they should have been. I don't know why I wrote 'worldly'.
I can't think what the word should have been.
Just ignore it.

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

Posts: 8210 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The thought of using verbal phrases for the Trinity actually goes back to the Hebrew understanding of God, one of being, existing, action not a static entity.
Posts: 2124 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Face it: to deny God’s wrath is, at bottom, to deny God’s love.
Oh I do face it and I agree. One could not easily just dismiss as irrelevant so many references to God's wrath and vengeance. I am really asking for someone to come up with some New Testament evidence that The Father actually poured out his 'wrath' on Jesus his Son in order that the human race could go scot free from condemnation.

Scripture certainly says that Christ bore our sins on the cross, but where exactly does it say God's wrath was poured out on Jesus? I can't find a single reference.

That is why I don't much like verse 4 of In Christ alone. Good tune, mostly good words, some questionable, (I don't even go so far as to say definitely wrong), theology, particularly in connection with a baptism, which is admittedly crucially connected with the crucifixion.

"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Cor. 1:13

There is a definite connection in Paul's mind regarding baptism and Christ's crucifixion.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor. 1:18.

--------------------
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: 94 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
It is such a caricature to suggest God is worldly angry and filled with revenge; but what I would suggest is that God's hatred of sin is exactly why the remedy had to be a cross and not just a preaching tour followed by quiet retirement into old age.
I do get the point that God's 'wrath' is righteous indignation and ours is usually 'worldly angry' as you put it. There are so many New Testament references telling us not to allow wrath to seize or control us that it cannot possibly be the same kind of 'wrath' that God himself exhibits when dealing with recalcitrant reprobates. Jesus however was not a recalcitrant reprobate. He was DRIVEN to the cross by 'the powers that be', i.e. the civil powers, the religious powers, the establishment powers, the invisible spiritual powers of wickedness hospitably entertained by the human race. And Jesus just LET THEM. It was his final example to his followers in overcoming the 'spiritual powers of wickedness'. And it worked.

It was inevitable that Christ would be nailed to a cross, simply because that was how humanity got rid of 'dangerous' individuals at that time, in that place.

[ 04. January 2018, 17:19: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]

--------------------
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: 94 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jut remind who exactly is saying that the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus?

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

Posts: 8210 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
'Til on that cross as Jesus died
The wrath of God was satisfied
For every sin on Him was laid
Here in the death of Christ I live.

quote:
Just remind who exactly is saying that the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus?
Exactly. I can find no NT evidence to support this claim in verse 4 of the worship song. That's why I don't much like the verse. Some churches even go so far as to edit it and replace the dodgy with more justifiable theology. Pedantic as it may seem. I still sing it and enjoy but put the wrath bit down to the limitations imposed by trying to get such a BIG sacrificial thought into a short 4 line verse.

[ 04. January 2018, 17:39: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]

--------------------
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: 94 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The song doesn't say the wrath of God was on Jesus.
It says our sin was laid upon him and that the wrath of God was satisfied.

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

Posts: 8210 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
The song doesn't say the wrath of God was on Jesus.
It says our sin was laid upon him and that the wrath of God was satisfied.

Nevertheless, can you find me a New Testament verse or passage that clearly states that God needed satisfaction, by demanding the sacrifice of his only Son, before He was able to forgive the human race, not holding their sins against them? It amounts to the same thing, don't you think?

That is not the way I see the atonement working.

By all accounts the death of Jesus was voluntary. Although he submitted to His Father's will in Gethsemane, his actual submission was to the will of MAN and to death, not necessarily the will of God that he should be forced to die the way he did.

--------------------
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: 94 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The whole point I was trying to make when bringing into play In Christ alone - IMV dodgy theology, terrible dirge-like, derivative tune, basically just dull, dull, dull - was that the message all the way through is that salvation, redemption, whatever is achieved through Christ alone which, again IMV, are highly odd and questionable sentiments/statements to bring into play (a) at a Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, (b)in a liturgy which specifically demands that sponsors of a candidate - or a candidate old enough to make their own promises - profess belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit and, above all (c)in a church which is declared to be Trinitarian, not Unitarian.

Yes, yes, I know the meerkat primus chose it for his enthronement but that said far, far more about him than perhaps he intended.

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

Posts: 4797 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
RevRdmCofE: Nevertheless, can you find me a New Testament verse or passage that clearly states that God needed satisfaction, by demanding the sacrifice of his only Son, before He was able to forgive the human race, not holding their sins against them? It amounts to the same thing, don't you think?
Perhaps it might help the discussion to list the references to 'Wrath" in the NT.

In total there are 29 uses of the word wrath in the New Testament. “Wrath” occurs four times in the gospels, but in only one of them (John 3: 36 ) is it unequivocally a reference to the wrath of God, though it could be argued that the words of John the Baptist in Luke 3:7 might be seen as such. Matthew 3:7 is unspecified wrath (possibly of God) directed narrowly against the Pharisees and Sadducees; and that of Luke 21:23 the wrath of Romans revenge in AD 70. I think it fair to suggest that the anger or wrath of Jesus was never directed towards humanity in general but rather targeted against his religious opponents.

“Wrath” does not occur at all in Acts, three times in 1 Thessalonians, twice in Colossians, and once in Corinthians. Inevitably there are ten uses of the word in Revelation which are all references to the wrath of God. The most coherent use of God’s wrath are to be found in Romans (10), six of them in the first four and a bit chapters. In other words, wrath in the NT is only coherently deployed in the first few chapters of one of Paul’s letters. It is, of course, arguable that his main concern in those chapters is to demonstrate the ubiquity of God’s Grace.

Posts: 1615 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The whole point I was trying to make when bringing into play In Christ alone - IMV dodgy theology, terrible dirge-like, derivative tune, basically just dull, dull, dull - was that the message all the way through is that salvation, redemption, whatever is achieved through Christ alone which, again IMV, are highly odd and questionable sentiments/statements to bring into play (a) at a Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, (b)in a liturgy which specifically demands that sponsors of a candidate - or a candidate old enough to make their own promises - profess belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit and, above all (c)in a church which is declared to be Trinitarian, not Unitarian. L'organist
You make your whole point very well. The only bit I am completely in the dark about is, who is the meerkat primus? Is that a SOF nom de plume?

[ 04. January 2018, 20:59: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]

--------------------
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: 94 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK.

Look at a TV advertisement for a well-known price comparison website, featuring Alexander Orlov and his side-kick, Sergei; now look at a press photograph from Lambeth Palace. They could be cousins.

Put it another way: its not as great a leap of imagination as that required by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny De Vito in Twins.

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

Posts: 4797 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Perhaps it might help the discussion to list the references to 'Wrath" in the NT.
Thanks for your reseach. I still couldn't find any stating that the wrath of God was satisfied, placated, turned aside, negated, withdrawn, quenched etc., by the death of Jesus thus making The Father morally responsible for the death of his own son.

I feel it was more of a hostage situation where Jesus was hounded to death by various human vested interests that regarded him as an irritating nemesis. He chose martyrdom rather than capitulate to coercion or have his teaching silenced by fear. The omniscient Father could predict the inevitability of this, yet still seeks reconciliation and offers amnesty to the human race in the hope of a positive response.
Each sincere baptism is another positive response to what God has already done.

--------------------
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: 94 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gill H

Shipmate
# 68

 - Posted      Profile for Gill H     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Getting back to the OP ...

I'm part of a 'plant of a plant' from HTB. We have virtually no connection with HTB itself, we're an experiment which began 20 years ago (predating Fresh Expressions so I guess we are stale expression!)

Anyway... we've been doing 'renewing your baptismal vows in water' for over 20 years. It is made explicit that this is not in any way rebaptism and that the person has already been baptised. We usually do this alongside any baptisms (adult or child) and we use a big paddling pool outside at the front of the church, which draws quite a crowd of onlookers!

We do also have confirmations, though it has been quite a while since we've had any.

As for infant baptism, we do that as the norm, but we do also offer dedications for those who don't wish to baptise their children.

Happy chaos but it seems to work!

--------------------
Searching for a new sig...

Posts: 9201 | From: London | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Perhaps it might help the discussion to list the references to 'Wrath" in the NT.
Thanks for your reseach. I still couldn't find any stating that the wrath of God was satisfied, placated, turned aside, negated, withdrawn, quenched etc., by the death of Jesus thus making The Father morally responsible for the death of his own son.

I feel it was more of a hostage situation where Jesus was hounded to death by various human vested interests that regarded him as an irritating nemesis. He chose martyrdom rather than capitulate to coercion or have his teaching silenced by fear. The omniscient Father could predict the inevitability of this, yet still seeks reconciliation and offers amnesty to the human race in the hope of a positive response.
Each sincere baptism is another positive response to what God has already done.

THIS

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

Posts: 8210 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close 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