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 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Re-Baptism ?
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 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 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: 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:
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: 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:
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: 255 | 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 
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: 2833 | 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 
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: 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 
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: 8237 | 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 
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: 2193 | 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 
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: 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:
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: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 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:
'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: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 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 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: 255 | 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 
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: 4950 | 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 
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: 1641 | 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 
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: 255 | 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 
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: 4950 | 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 
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: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gill H

Shipmate
# 68

 - Posted      Profile for Gill H     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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!

--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.

- Lyda Rose

Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:


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.

What this indicates is that consumer choice is king, if I may put it like that. It's probably quite an effective policy in a new church plant, but I imagine it's been driven more by pragmatism than by a coherent theology.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What this indicates is that consumer choice is king, if I may put it like that. It's probably quite an effective policy in a new church plant, but I imagine it's been driven more by pragmatism than by a coherent theology.

This is the least charitable interpretation possible, short of alleging that it is a plot by the water utility to increase usage.

Another explanation is the effect of the "liturgical renewal" movement, with an increased emphasis on symbol and ritual. Affirmation of Baptism is now a standard rite for the beginning of worship in the Evangelical Lutheran churches of North America. Since it increases the length of the service by as much as ninety seconds, it is unlikely to have been driven by what you term consumer or pragmatic reasons.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I did consider describing the church's considerations as 'pastoral', which might have been preferable - but still influenced by pragmatic concerns, IMO. But I'm not saying that pragmatism is necessarily negative, and nor am I condemning Gill H's church for doing what it does.

I agree that there's a demand for symbol and ritual. Earlier in the thread I said that the lack of a Christian ritual of transformation for young adults who had been baptised as babies was a problem. The response I got was that only cults aim to satisfy this need, which I thought was rather dismissive.

So in fact I'm not disparaging the use of ritual as such, but commenting on the diversity of baptismal or quasi-baptismal rituals that this church offers. No doubt there's also a choice of sprinkling or dunking.

This church plant clearly wants to do all it can to satisfy requests rather than having to turn people away.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826

 - Posted      Profile for LutheranChik   Author's homepage   Email LutheranChik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
When I was in school, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth, I remember the pastoral intern, at one of our our Sunday evening vesper services, inviting us all to dip our fingers into the baptismal font and give ourselves a good, splashy sin of the cross while meditating on the idea, “ I am baptized — marked with the cross of Christ.” She emphasized, however, that this was in no way a “ re- baptism.” I was a recent refugee from the LCMS student chapel, and despite her disclaimer, something about this felt naughty, like I was doing something I shouldn’t ( despite the fact that millions of worshippers do this all the time — poor, parochial thing I was). On the other hand, there was also something quite moving about it, and in fact a few students wound up weeping.
I think those of us in traditions that baptism infants/don’t re- baptize adults have some tools in our ritual toolkit that can help people who have been baptized, for some reason want to be baptized again and have a difficult time understanding why a clergyperson May refuse to do so.

(By the way, I hope I’m responding to part of the discussion here. I tried slogging through the penal substitutionary atonement conversation, but since that is way outside my belief system I really — well, got bored and irritated, and thought I’d go in another direction.

--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com

Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
One diocesan bishop I know had the confirmation candidates dip their fingers in font-water to sign themselves with the sign of the cross as a reminder of their baptism.

I suppose something similar to the sprinkling of the coffin with holy water.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

Another explanation is the effect of the "liturgical renewal" movement, with an increased emphasis on symbol and ritual.
...
Since it increases the length of the service by as much as ninety seconds, it is unlikely to have been driven by what you term consumer or pragmatic reasons.

I don't see that the latter militates against it being largely a pragmatic or consumer choice, if anything the former is practically evidence for it.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  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 Anselmina:
One diocesan bishop I know had the confirmation candidates dip their fingers in font-water to sign themselves with the sign of the cross as a reminder of their baptism.

I suppose something similar to the sprinkling of the coffin with holy water.

Or the use of holy water by Catholics every time they enter a church.

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Another explanation is the effect of the "liturgical renewal" movement, with an increased emphasis on symbol and ritual. Affirmation of Baptism is now a standard rite for the beginning of worship in the Evangelical Lutheran churches of North America.

In PC(USA) congregations, it has become common for the minister to lead the Confession from the font and then make use of the water at the Declaration of Forgiveness (what others might call the Absolution)—pouring water into the font, lifting water out and letting it fall back in, or sprinkling the congregation à la asperges.

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
To me, one interesting discovery was realising that - if I've got this right - the Orthodox drink their holy water from little cups provided for the purpose. It strikes me that once one accepts water can be holy, that's eminently logical. Can an Orthodox shipmate, though, confirm whether I'm correct or not.

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

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

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To me, one interesting discovery was realising that - if I've got this right - the Orthodox drink their holy water from little cups provided for the purpose. It strikes me that once one accepts water can be holy, that's eminently logical. Can an Orthodox shipmate, though, confirm whether I'm correct or not.

Depends on the church. At my old parish there was an urn with holy water, and little paper cups you could use to drink from it. Then there was a receptacle you threw the cups in, from which they were taken and reverently burned.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill H

Shipmate
# 68

 - Posted      Profile for Gill H     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I did consider describing the church's considerations as 'pastoral', which might have been preferable - but still influenced by pragmatic concerns, IMO. But I'm not saying that pragmatism is necessarily negative, and nor am I condemning Gill H's church for doing what it does.

I agree that there's a demand for symbol and ritual. Earlier in the thread I said that the lack of a Christian ritual of transformation for young adults who had been baptised as babies was a problem. The response I got was that only cults aim to satisfy this need, which I thought was rather dismissive.

So in fact I'm not disparaging the use of ritual as such, but commenting on the diversity of baptismal or quasi-baptismal rituals that this church offers. No doubt there's also a choice of sprinkling or dunking.

This church plant clearly wants to do all it can to satisfy requests rather than having to turn people away.

There is theoretically a choice, but most people seem to go for dunking (well, in the summer at least - the paddling pool is outdoors!)

To explain a little: we are an extra-parochial place and therefore have no parish. We were set up by the bishop, over 20 years ago now, to be an experiment and try out different ways of doing things.

For most of our church's life we haven't had our own building (indeed, originally we didn't have a building at all, and met in a park).

So we don't really have requests for baptisms or dedications from 'random droppers in'. By the time they want to ask for such a thing, they are usually a member. And many of our members seem to have a nonconformist background lurking somewhere in their past, which leads them to prefer infant dedication, which can be followed by baptism when/if the child chooses it.

(Incidentally, there is no formal membership. If you consider yourself a member, you are one. There is an electoral roll, which you need to be on if you want to be on the ACC, which is the Advisory Church Committee - we don't have a PCC for obvious reasons!)

--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.

- Lyda Rose

Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm uncomfortable with this "make a personal commitment" language to which credo-baptism is so often tied. Faith is something some people ease in and out of, without any points of making anything. What are people exactly committing themselves to? What does it mean?

To God. It's supposed to be an actual *choice*. (A la John 3:16. Also "I believe, Lord; help thou my unbelief".)

There's a story about...St. Augustine, IIRC. He was sitting outdoors somewhere, and heard a voice saying "God has no grandchildren". That's been taken as a message that Christians have to make their own choices; and that infant baptism accomplishes nothing, because the infant hasn't made a choice.

Some churches have a "dedication" instead of infant baptism. It fulfills the functions of introducing the kid to the congregation and of promising to raise the child to know about God; but does nothing toward salvation.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18594 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 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 Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm uncomfortable with this "make a personal commitment" language to which credo-baptism is so often tied. Faith is something some people ease in and out of, without any points of making anything. What are people exactly committing themselves to? What does it mean?

To God.
In my experience it’d be more accurate to say “to Jesus.” It’s a statement that one has made a choice to be a disciple of Jesus.

quote:
Some churches have a "dedication" instead of infant baptism. It fulfills the functions of introducing the kid to the congregation and of promising to raise the child to know about God; but does nothing toward salvation.
Again, just my experience, but the credo-baptist churches I’ve encountered would all say baptism never does anything toward salvation, regardless of the age of the one being baptized. They’d say baptism is a public testimony of the decision made by the baptized.

--------------------
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
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
There's a story about...St. Augustine, IIRC. He was sitting outdoors somewhere, and heard a voice saying "God has no grandchildren". That's been taken as a message that Christians have to make their own choices; and that infant baptism accomplishes nothing, because the infant hasn't made a choice.

If the story originates with St Augustine, then it took around a millennia for the message to be taken that way.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
That's been taken as a message that Christians have to make their own choices; and that infant baptism accomplishes nothing, because the infant hasn't made a choice.
This kind of reasoning is based upon ignorance of scripture.

There was once a conversation between a young adherent of adult only baptism and an old bishop. The young man stated. "Any fool can see with only a few hours study of the Bible, that infant baptism is unscriptural".

The old bishop answered. "I quite agree". "However a lifetimes study might enlighten you".

The baptism of infants is not based upon the premise that they understand what is going on or can make a choice. Neither is adult baptism for that matter. No one chooses for themselves to be saved. According to Christ you are either chosen or not.

It is not US that do the choosing.

If you would understand the Biblical grounds for the baptizing of infants, then read: The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism by Pierre Ch. Marcel, ISBN 0 227 6785 9

--------------------
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
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
There's a story about...St. Augustine, IIRC. He was sitting outdoors somewhere, and heard a voice saying "God has no grandchildren". That's been taken as a message that Christians have to make their own choices; and that infant baptism accomplishes nothing, because the infant hasn't made a choice.

If the story originates with St Augustine, then it took around a millennia for the message to be taken that way.
Who knows how accurate this is, but The Internet seems to point to the statement starting with Corrie Ten Boom, who is quoted as saying: "Does being born into a Christian family make one a Christian? No! God has no grandchildren.” It has been quoted by a wide variety of people, including paedo-baptists. It generally appears to be understood to speak to the need of passing the faith along to the next generation.

Perhaps the St. Augustine connection came in because Peter R. Augustine, an evangelist from Dominica, wrote a book entitled God Has No Grandchildren.

--------------------
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:
Some churches have a "dedication" instead of infant baptism. It fulfills the functions of introducing the kid to the congregation and of promising to raise the child to know about God; but does nothing toward salvation.
Another false premise argument. Baptism is not about conferring salvation upon a defenceless, unwitting infant, neither is it saving them from the fires of hell.

Infant baptism is the church recognising the infant of believing parents to be 'Holy' and therefore fully members according to God and scripture of the christian community. Baptism is a sign and seal of the infant's legitimate right to be recognised as a child of God, cared for and instructed in the ways of The Lord, until such time as the child ratifies and confirms, by agreement, the covenant of faith the child has been born under. i.e. that between God and his parent/s.

Dedication services are nice, though contrived, and without scriptural basis. Baptism is the only logical and theologically sanctioned sign and seal of the New Covenant, just as circumcision was of the Old, whether administered to child or adult.

--------------------
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
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Another false premise argument. Baptism is not about conferring salvation upon a defenceless, unwitting infant, neither is it saving them from the fires of hell.

Infant baptism is the church recognising the infant of believing parents to be 'Holy' and therefore fully members according to God and scripture of the christian community. Baptism is a sign and seal of the infant's legitimate right to be recognised as a child of God, cared for and instructed in the ways of The Lord, until such time as the child ratifies and confirms, by agreement, the covenant of faith the child has been born under. i.e. that between God and his parent/s.

You are setting forth one understanding of infant baptism. Some churches that practice infant baptism have a different understanding.

--------------------
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:
You are setting forth one understanding of infant baptism. Some churches that practice infant baptism have a different understanding.
I agree, yes but I doubt if any of the alternative justifications put forward for it are based on any verifiable scriptural basis. Just as some of the reasons some churches claim for the necessity for adult baptism have no viable scriptural basis.

There is a great deal of ignorance associated with the issue, paradoxically often from quarters which claim to know most about it.

[ 29. January 2018, 14:46: 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: 255 | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
You are setting forth one understanding of infant baptism. Some churches that practice infant baptism have a different understanding.
I agree, yes but I doubt if any of the alternative justifications put forward for it are based on any verifiable scriptural basis.
And I doubt that those Christians and churches who hold to other understandings of baptism would agree that their understandings lack a scriptural basis, your doubt notwithstanding.

I'm not challenging your understanding. I’m simply suggesting that Christianity is a varied thing, and in an environment such as the Ship, it often aids neither fruitful discussion nor mutual understanding to come across as asserting either that your understanding is the understanding of Christianity, or that you’re indisputably right and anyone who disagrees is indisputably wrong, ignorant or operating from false premises.

[ 29. January 2018, 15:24: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
This kind of reasoning is based upon ignorance of scripture.

There was once a conversation between a young adherent of adult only baptism and an old bishop. The young man stated. "Any fool can see with only a few hours study of the Bible, that infant baptism is unscriptural".

The old bishop answered. "I quite agree". "However a lifetimes study might enlighten you".

The baptism of infants is not based upon the premise that they understand what is going on or can make a choice. Neither is adult baptism for that matter. No one chooses for themselves to be saved. According to Christ you are either chosen or not.

It is not US that do the choosing.

If you would understand the Biblical grounds for the baptizing of infants, then read: The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism by Pierre Ch. Marcel, ISBN 0 227 6785 9

RdrEmCofE, it is difficult to extract from scripture any specific guidance on the baptism or otherwise of the children of parents who are already Christians. I'd challenge you to do so. Despite the simple language you use, it is also difficult unequivocally to demonstrate double predestination from scripture.

Apart from the core issue of the Trinitarian formula (e.g. Matt 29:19), it is quite difficult even to plead scripture in support of any particular way of conducting baptisms. It clearly involved water. For adults it probably involved their going under it Rom 6:4. I don't think we have any idea, though, whether candidates were pushed under and then pulled up again, or whether they were plunged backwards as most credo-baptisers seem to assume.

In the same way, scripture clearly (to my understanding) commands us to partake of the bread and the wine, but gives next to no instructions as to how this should be celebrated. I think we can safely assume, though, that what people did on a Sunday morning in C1 Antioch or one of the seven churches, yet alone Corinth where we know they were getting a lot wrong, didn't look much like Common Worship, the 1662 BCP, the Roman Mass, whether Tridentine or Post Vatican II, the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, the Brethren's Breaking of Bread Service, or, for that matter, anything involving wee cuppies.

[ 29. January 2018, 16:14: Message edited by: Enoch ]

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

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
it is difficult to extract from scripture any specific guidance on the baptism or otherwise of the children of parents who are already Christians. I'd challenge you to do so.
I was not talking about ritual or liturgy. I was talking about doctrine. Which if a church claims to be 'Biblical' in the way it regards and administers baptism, should be able to make the case for its practice from scripture.

quote:
I'd challenge you to do so.
If you have not yet read the book I recommended I suggest you read it and do your own homework. It is seminal work on the subject.

--------------------
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:
I'm not challenging your understanding.
Fine; but I'm not the one trying to declare any particular form of baptism as necessarily scripturally invalid. It is those who oppose paedobaptism who do. I am for both infant and adult baptism, according to the presenting circumstances.

I am simply stating paedobaptism is grounded firmly on a scriptural basis, not just a 'superstitious whim fostered by some old fashioned and supposedly scripturaly ignorant denominations'.

quote:
I’m simply suggesting that Christianity is a varied thing, and in an environment such as the Ship, it often aids neither fruitful discussion nor mutual understanding to come across as asserting either that your understanding is the understanding of Christianity, or that you’re indisputably right and anyone who disagrees is indisputably wrong, ignorant or operating from false premises.
The claim that infants should not be baptised because they are too young to 'decide for themselves' is a false premise. Because infant baptism does not have its doctrinal foundation on the idea that baptism requires a decision from the recipient before it can be legitimately administered. That only applies in the case of adults, and only then on the condition they are physically and mentally capable of expressing such as decision. Were that not the case, many invalids, imbeciles and otherwise disabled persons would be excluded and could not receive baptism. So even in the case of some adults, all that would be required would be a willingness to receive not an obligation or requirement to verbally express the fact that they had 'made a decision for themselves'.

--------------------
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
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
The claim that infants should not be baptised because they are too young to 'decide for themselves' is a false premise. Because infant baptism does not have its doctrinal foundation on the idea that baptism requires a decision from the recipient before it can be legitimately administered.

And many sincere Christians who rely on Scripture would say that any view of baptism that sees as legitimate the baptism of a person has not made a decision to follow Jesus and be baptized rests on a false premise, a false understanding of what baptism is.

You seem to have completely missed the point of my post. It had nothing to do with what is or is not a proper understanding of baptism, or who is or is not a legitimate recipient of baptism, or why.

--------------------
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:
And many sincere Christians who rely on Scripture would say that any view of baptism that sees as legitimate the baptism of a person has not made a decision to follow Jesus and be baptized rests on a false premise, a false understanding of what baptism is.
It is not their sincerity I doubt, it is their definition of legitimacy which, in the case you mention, is based upon their own erroneous understanding of the Biblical Doctrinal basis for the baptism of infants. They simply do not understand what scripture says about the position of the infants of believers in God's economy of Salvation and they clearly can't be bothered to find out by studying the relevant passages themselves. Selective interpretation rarely established sound doctrine.

--------------------
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
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
It is not their sincerity I doubt, it is their definition of legitimacy which, in the case you mention, is based upon their own erroneous understanding of the Biblical Doctrinal basis for the baptism of infants.

[Roll Eyes]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  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:
They simply do not understand what scripture says about the position of the infants of believers in God's economy of Salvation and they clearly can't be bothered to find out by studying the relevant passages themselves. Selective interpretation rarely established sound doctrine.

And you've still completely missed the point of my posts.

--------------------
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:
You seem to have completely missed the point of my post. It had nothing to do with what is or is not a proper understanding of baptism, or who is or is not a legitimate recipient of baptism, or why.

Your point seems to be that one cannot legitimately claim another's assumptions to be based upon a false premise without attracting the accusation that one is implying one's own premise to be not only true, but the only one possible. Was that it?

If not perhaps you would be kind enough to reiterate you point.

--------------------
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
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Your point seems to be that one cannot legitimately claim another's assumptions to be based upon a false premise without attracting the accusation that one is implying one's own premise to be not only true, but the only one possible. Was that it?

Close, but no, not quite. Your posts seem to me to go further than just saying that others' assumptions based on a false premise. Rather, they do seem to say that your understanding is the only possible one. My point is that that’s not helpful. Do you see the difference between:
quote:
"Those who object to infant baptism do so based on an understanding of what baptism means that those of us who baptize infants don't share. The premise that such a baptism is illegitimate because there is no choice is a false premise in the context of what we understand Scripture to say about baptism."

and

"Those who object to infant baptism do so out of ignorance of Scripture and a faulty understanding of what baptism really is."

The latter example is how your posts have come across, at least to me. And I would suggest that when one frames arguments in this way, one risks:

• letting what one is saying get lost in how one is saying it;
• derailing discussion; and
• being viewed as, at best, someone not worth trying to engage with.

[ 29. January 2018, 19:49: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
it is difficult to extract from scripture any specific guidance on the baptism or otherwise of the children of parents who are already Christians. I'd challenge you to do so.
I was not talking about ritual or liturgy. I was talking about doctrine. Which if a church claims to be 'Biblical' in the way it regards and administers baptism, should be able to make the case for its practice from scripture.

quote:
I'd challenge you to do so.
If you have not yet read the book I recommended I suggest you read it and do your own homework. It is seminal work on the subject.

RdrEmCofE I wasn't asking you what someone else thinks. My question was to you, what you think and why? I was asking you to produce from scripture specific guidance on the baptism or otherwise of the children of parents who are already Christians.

As it happens I agree with infant baptism.

I'd likewise challenge anyone to demonstrate from scripture that the baptism of the children of Christian parents must be deferred until they reach an age to decide for themselves. The guidance is not there. I don't think it can be done. This dilemma is something that scripture just does not cover.

I'm not asking you even for doctrinal deductions.

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

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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  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