Thread: Re-Baptism ? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020421

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
An old school friend of the children arrived to stay for New Year. It appears he has become quite heavily involved with a "new" local church, although not to the extent of being interested in a service on Sunday.

Anyway, during the course of conversation it came up that he had been baptised earlier in the year. When I said that it must take some guts to be baptised as an adult when one hadn't been as a child I was told that he had been baptised as an infant: he had his baptismal certificate and was still in touch with Godparents, indeed his Godparents had all attended his confirmation.

So I then asked how it could be that his new church had "baptised" him since my understanding was that once baptised it couldn't be undone and, even if one disapproved of or disputed the validity of infant baptism, surely confirmation (at the age of 15) meant that Christian initiation had well-and-truly taken place. 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. Frankly I was appalled and would normally be extremely concerned that this young man is getting involved with some sort of sect - except that the church in the case is an HTB plant.

Anyway, what do shipmates think?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I think you are right to be concerned.

Given that he has his baptismal certificate (Church of England, presumably), his baptism is perfectly valid, and was indeed ratified by him at his Confirmation.

If this 'new' church is an HTB plant, and therefore presumably Anglican, the Archdeacon ought to be informed of this radical departure from Anglican practice and teaching.

Who do these bl**dy people think they are? God Himself, perhaps?

[Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Isn't this what Anabaptists did? And no, it has no place in Anglicanism.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I do believe in infant baptism, but if you don't, then this church's actions seem perfectly reasonable in themselves. If the guy hasn't been (in their view) validly baptised, then he needs to be baptised properly.

I don't understand why denial of infant baptism suggests some kind of extreme sect. Isn't it rather common among non-Anglican Protestants?

I also don't understand how confirmation could substitute for believer's baptism. IME a belief in believer's baptism does not imply anti-sacramentalism. Confirmation is not believer's baptism because the form - immersion in water - is not present.

That said, I would agree that an Anglican minister who doesn't believe in infant baptism is in the wrong church.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't understand why denial of infant baptism suggests some kind of extreme sect. Isn't it rather common among non-Anglican Protestants?

Some non-Anglican Protestants. Infant baptism is the norm in Lutheran and most Presbyterian churches, Methodists (who, of course, have Anglican ancestry), many Congregationalists.

Credobaptism is the norm for Baptists (obviously), Pentecostal, most Restorationist Churches and independent Evangelical churches (including larger organisations such as Vineyard).
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
An old school friend of the children arrived to stay for New Year. It appears he has become quite heavily involved with a "new" local church, although not to the extent of being interested in a service on Sunday.

I'm interested in why he went through the process of re-baptism if he doesn't want to be part of the worshipping life of the church. Or do you mean that he doesn't want to attend services at your church?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps he's presently involved with a weekday cell or house group?

Whether or not he wants to attend L'organist's church is irrelevant to the question being asked.

IJ
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Some non-Anglican Protestants. Infant baptism is the norm in Lutheran and most Presbyterian churches, Methodists (who, of course, have Anglican ancestry), many Congregationalists.

Credobaptism is the norm for Baptists (obviously), Pentecostal, most Restorationist Churches and independent Evangelical churches (including larger organisations such as Vineyard).

Sure - by 'common', I really meant 'not extreme'. I wouldn't describe any of the groups in your second list as 'sects' anyway.

(The diffuse nature of Pentecostalism means that some Pentecostal churches probably can be described as sects, but I wouldn't link that to credobaptism.)
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So I then asked how it could be that his new church had "baptised" him since my understanding was that once baptised it couldn't be undone and, even if one disapproved of or disputed the validity of infant baptism, surely confirmation (at the age of 15) meant that Christian initiation had well-and-truly taken place. 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.

It's definitely the norm around here that people baptized as infants who join a Baptist church will be “re-baptized,” only the Baptists wouldn’t consider it a rebaptism because they wouldn’t consider infant baptism an actual baptism. This is in part because of a completely different understanding of baptism—it’s not understood as a sacrament in which grace is conferred and initiation into the church takes place, but rather is an act of public profession of faith.

Now that said, that the situation you describe happened in an ostensibly Anglican setting does seem odd.

[ 01. January 2018, 12:17: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed, and I guess many of us who do believe in, and practise, infant/child baptism would affirm that the Baptists' point of view is perfectly understandable.

It's the fact that the church referred to is an HTB plant that is rather disturbing.

I know that some of the more charevo Anglican churches take the liturgy and practices of their denomination lightly sometimes, but this seems to be going too far.

Perhaps the plant's leader is a bit of a maverick?

IJ
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I have to say that all HTB-ish or HTB-influenced Anglican clergy I've met wouldn't baptise anyone who'd already 'been done' - even if they sat very lightly (as most of them do) by other Anglican rubrics and practices.

If it is the case with this HTB-plant then I wonder whether it represents a change of direction - or a continuation of a trajectory they're already on?

Plenty of HTB-ish clergy strike me as people who'd be a heck of a lot happier in a 'baptistic' church of some kind - be it Vineyard, Baptist or whatever remains of the older 'new churches' of the 1970s - '90s.

I think I'd like to hear from the leaders themselves before forming any firm judgement though. Does this chap's decision represent his own views as an earnest convert or does it represent the practices of an otherwise ostensibly Anglican group?

I once knew a woman whose vicar father had himself baptised (or re-baptised?) by immersion before retiring from the Anglican ministry. He had a portable baptismal pool brought into the church for the purpose, apparently.

Earnest young restorationist though I was at the time, I wondered to myself why he made such a big deal of it and why he didn't simply retire then seek baptism (or re-baptism) in a credo-baptist setting if that's where his convictions lay?

But then, both 'ends' of the CofE have mavericks and anomalies - such as Anglo-Papalists refusing to avail themselves of the Ordinariate for instance and wanting to 'stay put' only on their own terms (or admission to Rome on their own terms) ...

I'm sure one could find some equally puzzling things going on at that end of the spectrum as well as at the HTB end of things.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Bishop's Finger

I don't think it's at all irrelevant, since the OP invites us to ask what re-baptism is for.

What I read somewhere once is that infant baptism emphasises what God does for us, whereas believer's baptism emphasises the human response - it's an act of will which indicates that one is committed to leading a new life in Christ. To participate actively in the worshipping existence of the church could be assumed to be a significant part of that new life.

OTOH, believer's baptism can be even more complicated than that. In (some kinds of) Pentecostalism it seems to have a protective quality, rather as infant baptism does, and I'm not sure that the transformational element takes priority.

But if the OP is interested in mainstream historical perspectives only (particularly CofE ones) then there's not much to say, is there? The church in question is simply breaking the rules and should be chastised.

My sense is that the CofE's tolerance of breadth undermines all attempts to control unorthodoxy.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Gamaliel said:
quote:
I think I'd like to hear from the leaders themselves before forming any firm judgement though. Does this chap's decision represent his own views as an earnest convert or does it represent the practices of an otherwise ostensibly Anglican group?
A fair point - this may be a one-off, and the comments reported in the OP appear to be those of the chap himself, and not necessarily those of the church leadership. It does sound as though their teaching might be a bit suspect, nevertheless!

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Sorry - only 'suspect' in reference to Anglican practice. Not casting nasturtiums on Baptists at all, at all, yer Honour...

IJ
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
I was christened/baptised as an infant and confirmed at 13 because that was how it was done. I became a Christian when I was a Universty, and , in the words of the definition of a sacrament, wanted to make an outward sign of an inward change, and so got baptised by immersion at the Evangelical church I attended.
I can accept infant baptism when the family of the child being baptised keep their promises to bring the child to church, but so often in our Church in Wales parish, we never see them again. I am therefore more in favour of "believer's baptism", where the individual has made a personal commitment and knows what he or she is doing.
On the other hand, I have a very close, very wise older friend who is a spiritual mentor, who was baptised and confirmed as a child, brought up in the church, made her own commitment, and has no need to reaffirm her baptismal or confirmation vows.
I think there has to be flexibility to accept both ways of thinking.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I think the meaning for many people who do it without being theologically versed is psychological. IOW, they invest the act with their own meaning rather than deferring to the official one given by the denomination.

I should think this kind of personalisation happens in all sorts of religious matters, since very few of us receive theological training.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Baptism
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
This whole issue can be a minefield. I have now served in two ecumenical churches which practice both types of baptism – although, as a Baptist, I am not expected to actually carry out infant baptism (some of my colleagues in similar situations do,though).

We had a difficulty in my last church when a lady who had been christened in the church many years earlier wished to be re-baptised. There were specific circumstances around her situation: she has “special needs” and had recently lost her mother (a keen Christian); in a sense she was “striking out on her own” for the first time in her life. She adamantly refused to simply make a reconfirmation of the baptismal vows which had been sincerely made on her behalf – she saw this as being “fobbed off”.

We talked a lot about this at both the Deacons’ and Church Meetings and sought advice from “higher authority” both within the Baptist Union and the URC, the church being affiliated to both denominations (said authorities both replied, “We’re happy to endorse whatever the church decides”). Eventually we decided that, in this somewhat unique circumstance, pastoral considerations overcame church protocol, and the baptism went ahead – not without quite a few misgivings. But the lady felt “blessed” and we managed to avoid a major row in the congregation!

On a more general point, were I a paedobaptist I would very much agree with St. Gwladys' comments - although I understand that Anglicans (CofE anyway, perhaps not CinW) can't reasonably refuse a request for baptism. Is that correct?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Eventually we decided that, in this somewhat unique circumstance, pastoral considerations overcame church protocol, and the baptism went ahead – not without quite a few misgivings.

Seems to me that this would be a good time to dust off the conditional baptism formula - no reason I can see that that can't be used with a full immersion.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Hmm ... it wouldn't have been applicable in our particular case. There was no doubt that the lady in question had been "properly" baptised as an infant.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I like the explanation that Baptists view baptism more as a public profession of personal faith.

I note that it is not all that unusual to see a person moving from, say the American Baptist tradition, to the Southern Baptist tradition to be rebaptized, though I do not think it is expected.

For most mainline churches (other than those of Baptist orientation) baptism is a sacrament which not only instills faith but also welcomes a person into the Body of Christ. Once in, there is no reason to redo it over and over again.

Most mainline churches they are moving away from the term "confirmation" to "Reaffirmation of the Faith." It is not something people do in their early teens but throughout their lives. Often, if a person who has been baptized before and wants to formally join my congregation, we ask if they want to do a "Reaffirmation of the Faith." Often times, though, when new people join, they just want to keep it quiet which is okay since most people want things to be seamless nowadays.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
This is in part because of a completely different understanding of baptism—it’s not understood as a sacrament in which grace is conferred and initiation into the church takes place, but rather is an act of public profession of faith. [Nick Tamen]
I agree but the misunderstanding is even more profound than you describe here.

Although baptism is one of the two rites in the Anglican Church considered to be 'sacraments', i.e. ( the outward and visible SIGN of an inward invisible grace), bestowed entirely by God, through faith, to the benefit of His believing people, it is also a SEAL and SIGN of the Covenant of Grace.

The infants of believing parent(s) are declared by scripture to be 'Holy' 1 Cor. 7:14, It is according to the faith of just one or both parents that their child is rendered 'holy to God' and not 'unclean'. Therefore the child has a RIGHT to be baptised as a sign and seal of its associate membership of The Church of Jesus Christ, who died for him/her. (The children of believers belong to God, not us). Confirmation 'confirms' the 'believers' part in accepting God's gracious act of redemption and taking the vows of allegiance to Christ and renunciation of evil that the parents and or Godparents made on the child's behalf at baptism, agreeing at that time to teach the child the ways of The Lord and prepare him/her to develop a trusting and faithful relationship with the triune God.

NOT understanding this theology is the reason that so many 'non-pew filling' Anglicans fall for the 'Rebaptism' bunk foisted upon them by well intentioned but ignorant adherents of full immersion believers baptism, on the spurious grounds that THEIR original baptism as an infant was invalid due to THEIR incapacity to BELIEVE at the time.

It was not their baptism that was invalid, it was their parents example and teaching or their own wayward rebellion and rejection of God's Covenant that caused their alienation from God. For those whom God has managed to bring to a position whereby they ASK for believers baptism and willingly receive it, So Much The Better I say. If only they had been better schooled in the ways of God and learned to hear his voice and follow his guidance they may never have needed to endure the humiliation of being led to Christ in late adulthood. They could have known him from Childhood like Timothy did.

2 Tim. 1:5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lo′is and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you.

But that was not the reason for their being qualified for baptism in infancy. Their qualification was entirely because God had made a covenant with one or both of their parents. They therefore, from birth, had an obligation to God to PERSONALLY ratify and agree the terms of that covenant as soon as they fully understood the full import of it. i.e. at Confirmation. (More exactly at the time of the truly ONE and ONLY baptism, that of The Baptism in The Holy Spirit, spoken of by Christ in John 3:4-15 which can happen at ANY time in a believers life, but usually follows full cognition of covenant consequences and responsibilities.) Failure to do so renders them renegades and Covenant Breakers, more serious than merely unbelieving through ignorance.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Hmm ... it wouldn't have been applicable in our particular case. There was no doubt that the lady in question had been "properly" baptised as an infant.

Well, sure - so the conditional baptism wouldn't have done anything (if you are of a mind that baptism "does" anything) but would still have had all the actions and ceremonial that your lady wanted. It is probably a bit irregular to perform a conditional baptism when you know for certain that the person is baptized, but that seems a much smaller fudge towards pastoral needs than a re-baptism.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I'm uneasy with the language that infant baptism doesn't count, and that full immersion is the only credential to define a Christian. This is exclusive and can be unkind.

I don't have an issue with someone christened as an infant who decides as an adult that they would like full immersion rather than or as well as confirmation, whether to make their own declaration to the world of their committed faith, or as a personal desire to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. I think that the Church should be happy to facilitate this. After all, whoever baptises someone is asking God to bless them, and it is God who responds to what us in our hearts, and who is in control of blessings
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Hmm ... it wouldn't have been applicable in our particular case. There was no doubt that the lady in question had been "properly" baptised as an infant.

Well, sure - so the conditional baptism wouldn't have done anything (if you are of a mind that baptism "does" anything) ...
Interesting point: "official" Baptist teaching is that baptism doesn't "do" anything, however most people who get baptised do expect to receive some kind of (undefined) "blessing".

quote:
... but would still have had all the actions and ceremonial that your lady wanted. It is probably a bit irregular to perform a conditional baptism when you know for certain that the person is baptized, but that seems a much smaller fudge towards pastoral needs than a re-baptism.

Perhaps, but the term "conditional baptism" is unknown in (most) Nonconformist circles. And wouldn't it be telling a lie to baptism conditionally if you knew for a fact that the person had already been baptised?

[ 01. January 2018, 15:56: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't understand why denial of infant baptism suggests some kind of extreme sect. Isn't it rather common among non-Anglican Protestants?

Some non-Anglican Protestants. Infant baptism is the norm in Lutheran and most Presbyterian churches, Methodists (who, of course, have Anglican ancestry), many Congregationalists.

Credobaptism is the norm for Baptists (obviously), Pentecostal, most Restorationist Churches and independent Evangelical churches (including larger organisations such as Vineyard).

Yes.

But even churches that practice infant baptism don't necessarily frown on re-baptism. As noted, it really depends on your understanding of the sacraments.

I was baptized as an infant in the UCC (United Church of Christ), but wanted to be rebaptized as a youth due to my understanding of baptism at the time. My UCC congregation accommodated this at my confirmation.

The Presbyterian church I'm ordained in (PCUSA), otoh, is open to either infant or credo-baptism but does not re-baptize, pretty much for the reasons outlined above.

The obvious reality here is that there is a broad range of beliefs within broadly orthodox Christianity, so we shouldn't be too shocked at one group requiring or encouraging rebaptism. I would agree that if it is an Anglican Church that would be more of a concern.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
The infants of believing parent(s) are declared by scripture to be 'Holy' 1 Cor. 7:14, It is according to the faith of just one or both parents that their child is rendered 'holy to God' and not 'unclean'. Therefore the child has a RIGHT to be baptised as a sign and seal of its associate membership of The Church of Jesus Christ, who died for him/her.

But isn't that the problem, when people bring their child to be baptised - possibly due to family custom - but seem to have no idea of the Faith and have no desire to be part of the Visible Church? Is such a baptism in any way meaningful?

I know you will say that they have shown some faith merely by asking for the baptism, and that we shouldn't try to judge what's going on in peoples' hearts and minds. There's truth in that, but it seems a bit of a "let-out" to me, if I'm honest.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


We had a difficulty in my last church when a lady who had been christened in the church many years earlier wished to be re-baptised.

The story you relate here is a clear example of what I was saying above, that ordinary people give these rituals their own meanings, rather than abiding by the official ones produced by their denominations.

The churches acquiesce to unorthodox re-baptisms for pastoral reasons, as you say, but I think it's also about pragmatism; they don't want to lose or even just offend people who would otherwise walk away. Infant baptisms for children born to non-religious parents are approached in the same way, ISTM.

Churches of all kinds now operate in a buyer's market, whether they like it or not.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
My present church's statement, thrashed out after a "sticky patch" some years ago. I wasn't there at the time:

"Worship reflects the inter-denominational composition of the congregation. ... Infant and believer’s baptism and infant dedication are practised. It is a Church decision not to re-baptise as believers those baptised as infants, in this way we demonstrate very clearly that we accept and respect first baptism, whichever that may have been." I may add that we do strongly urge Thanksgiving/Blessing as an alternative to baptism for parents who are not part of our worshipping community, and do not want parents to make promises they do not understand or feel they cannot realistically keep.

[ 01. January 2018, 16:05: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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?

My denomination has language in our Directory of Worship that I think reflects the theological truth behind both forms of baptism:

quote:
Both believers and their children are included in
God’s covenant love. The baptism of believers witnesses
to the truth that God’s gift of grace calls for our grateful
response. The baptism of our young children witnesses to
the truth that God claims people in love even before they
are able to respond in faith. These two forms of witness
are one and the same Sacrament.



[ 01. January 2018, 16:15: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
As a credobaptist I object to the "gotcha" kind of mentality that essentially seems to declare a monopoly over the baptismal status of anyone baptised as an infant without so much as their say-so.

My discomfort is not aided by one RC chaplain of my acquaintance vigorously going round poaching even protestant chapel attendees in prison in order to get them baptised in prison, which I have other objections to generally.

Inasmuch as the RC have also developed renewals of baptismal vows for believers that for all intents and purposes look exactly like a baptism without the water*, I think this smacks of double standards.

All that said, our church is probably rare in France in having evangelical praxis but not requiring believers' baptism for membership. I would respect somebody's infant baptism if they have gone on to confirmation and if it made sense to them, but I wouldn't prevent them being baptised as a believer on the basis of this representing their own affirmation of their faith.

(On one occasion I resolved a crisis with a young man just under 18 seeking believers' baptism amid strong, almost superstitious family objections by tackling the subject along these lines, to everybody's satisfaction).

New spanner in the works: how many of you would accept a JW baptism as valid? [Two face]

==
*in much the same way as many evangelical churches have developed "dedication" services for babies that look very similar to infant baptisms minus the water...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I once went to a service of baptism in an Anglican cathedral where the Dean (at the time) had links to HTB. There were a bunch of baptism candidates, some were "reaffirmers", some were being done as adults for the first time.

Although the difference was noted during the service, it was tricky to tell what it was in practice. The actual dunking appeared to be exactly the same.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Perhaps, but the term "conditional baptism" is unknown in (most) Nonconformist circles. And wouldn't it be telling a lie to baptism conditionally if you knew for a fact that the person had already been baptised?

I would check with your URC colleagues. Some of them from Northern will have been trained up in URC praxis by a teacher who I know darn well knew about conditional baptism and evidence suggests that Westminster students knew of it as well around that time. All right it is the senior ones now but ...

fyi it would have been taught due to it in many circumstances being a work around for the knot the URC is about Baptism. Since the merger with the Churches of Christ we have acknowledged dual integrities with respect to Baptism but have not allowed re-baptism.

Jengie
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

New spanner in the works: how many of you would accept a JW baptism as valid? [Two face]

I'd be interested to know what liturgy is employed in a JW baptism....

When my mother was a girl, she was baptised in a Jesus-Name Pentecostal ceremony. (This means that the formula 'In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...' wasn't used.) But when she joined the British Methodist Church years later, she was accepted into membership and lay leadership without any requirement for re-baptism.

Ignorance on the part of the Methodist minister and congregation simplified matters, I expect. My mother herself wouldn't have presented her baptism as a problem, because for her it wasn't, and how was anyone else to know? I do know she'd have been very angry if anyone had suggested that her baptism was unacceptable.

OTOH, if she'd wanted to be re-baptised, she could have made a case for it. The Methodists would probably have obliged.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
What happens if you get baptism wrong?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
The baby/adult candidate drowns. Or stays dry.

[ 01. January 2018, 17:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
If I can say this reverently, God knows, Tortuf ...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Inasmuch as the RC have also developed renewals of baptismal vows for believers that for all intents and purposes look exactly like a baptism without the water*, I think this smacks of double standards.

"Baptism without the water" makes as much sense as "Meal without the food."

Shifting the subject slightly, the credo-baptist, from my understanding, isn't "re-baptising" because a non-believing baptism, to them, isn't a baptism at all. They're baptising, rightly understood, for the first time.

quote:
in much the same way as many evangelical churches have developed "dedication" services for babies that look very similar to infant baptisms minus the water...
Because deep down they know that babies should be baptised, but because of their misguided beliefs can't bring themselves to do it.

Baptism is the rite of entering the Kingdom. Or as St. Paul says somewhere, "as many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ." The paedo-baptist says, why should this grace be denied our infants? But we all know the arguments on both sides, don't we?

ETA:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
What happens if you get baptism wrong?

What exactly would that look like?

[ 01. January 2018, 17:15: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
in much the same way as many evangelical churches have developed "dedication" services for babies that look very similar to infant baptisms minus the water...
Because deep down they know that babies should be baptised, but because of their misguided beliefs can't bring themselves to do it.

A bit of pot-stirring there, mouse thief.

Harkening back to our PCUSA statement quoted above, I prefer to think that both traditions are recognizing that there are some significant milestones on our faith journeys that need to be recognized.

• As noted in the PCUSA statement, God's gift of grace comes to us long before we are able to respond or acknowledge it. Like an infant is completely dependent on his/her parents for life itself, we are all utterly dependent on God's gracious inbreaking. Therefore, both paedobaptists and credobaptists agree that infancy is an appropriate time to recognize and celebrate the invisible work of God in coming to us, loving us, long before we were able to recognize it. Paedobaptists do this thru infant baptism, credobaptists do this thru infant dedication.

• As noted in the PCUSA statement, God's gift of grace always calls for a response of faith-- our "yes" to God's gracious gift. Therefore, both paedobaptists and credobaptists agree that it is appropriate to celebrate the believers' growing, decisive response with a public affirmation of faith. Paedobaptists do this thru confirmation, credobaptists do this thru believer baptism.

Personally, I'm good with that. But I'm coming from a far more Zwinglian understanding of the sacraments.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:


quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
What happens if you get baptism wrong?

What exactly would that look like?
My point.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
in much the same way as many evangelical churches have developed "dedication" services for babies that look very similar to infant baptisms minus the water...
Because deep down they know that babies should be baptised, but because of their misguided beliefs can't bring themselves to do it.
That's naughty, so let me be naughty in return. A "true Baptist" would say that they follow OT practice (eg Samuel) in offering Dedication/Thanksgiving; they might also say that centuries of indiscriminate wrong practice have led to families expecting "something" from the Church for their babies, so they offer Dedication as a concession to that expectation.

Of course that's a cynical explanation, as Dedication is very much an opportunity of welcoming the child into the church family; however it is not regarded as a rite which confers grace, beyond the blessing that is invoked in the prayers.

[ 01. January 2018, 17:30: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:


quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
What happens if you get baptism wrong?

What exactly would that look like?
My point.
Presumably by being done in some way which is "unauthorised" or "invalid" - whatever that may mean.

[ 01. January 2018, 17:33: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
How about God is not persuaded, or disuaded, because of magic words, magic rituals, or anything else we humans can do.

How about God loves us not because we get things "right" but because God is good and God is love.

So, getting baptism "wrong" is . . . just possibly not all that much of an issue for God.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
[Overused]
 
Posted by Diomedes (# 13482) on :
 
Thankyou Tortuf. Wise words. [Overused]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I note that it is not all that unusual to see a person moving from, say the American Baptist tradition, to the Southern Baptist tradition to be rebaptized, though I do not think it is expected.

There are Baptist churches in these parts where it would be expected, even for people moving from one Southern Baptist church to another. And it can also happen when people “recommit themselves to Christ.”*

quote:
Most mainline churches they are moving away from the term "confirmation" to "Reaffirmation of the Faith." It is not something people do in their early teens but throughout their lives.
Our Official Books call the service “Reaffirmation of the Baptismal Covenant for Those Making a Profession of Faith.” In Real Life, everyone calls it confirmation. (There are also “Reaffirmation of the Baptismal Covenant” liturgies to mark occasions of growth in faith and joining a congregation, as well as liturgies for congregational reaffirmation and reaffirmation in the context of pastoral counseling—the closest we have to a rite of confession. All of these are seen as distinct from confirmation.)


* These are not intended as scare quotes, but rather just indicate the phrase commonly heard.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O, there are so many things, about which we get our knickers in a twist, which are probably not much of an issue with God....

....but which make these boards both entertaining and instructive.

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Deep down [Evangelicals] know that babies should be baptised, but because of their misguided beliefs can't bring themselves to do it.

I think evangelical churches offer dedication services because that's what some church members and enquirers want. IOW, it's demand-led. Baby welcoming rituals are universal, after all.

AFAIK some CofE churches offer infant dedications as an alternative to infant baptisms. The idea is to provide something welcoming for parents who have no intention of raising their babies in a specifically 'Christian' manner, as the baptismal vows demand.

In reality, though, I've read that it's largely churchgoing parents in the CofE who take up the option of an infant dedication, while non-religious parents who turn up at church still mostly prefer a 'proper' baptism. I can kind of see why. These parents are all interpreting the ritual of infant baptism in their own way.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

How about God loves us not because we get things "right" but because God is good and God is love.

So, getting baptism "wrong" is . . . just possibly not all that much of an issue for God.

The call to a 'simple faith' can sound very worthy but .. the understanding of the faith that you have is ordained as part of you. Live with it, you can't choose to 'forget' it - that is not your calling.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

AFAIK some CofE churches offer infant dedications as an alternative to infant baptisms.

The last (CofE) two churches I have attended have offered both - both are the sort that would rarely end up with random folk from the parish rocking up to ask for infant baptism. The breakdown of baptisms to dedications were/are about 50/50.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

New spanner in the works: how many of you would accept a JW baptism as valid? [Two face]

A truly devious question! Having looked it up, I see JWs do indeed baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, so the form is correct.

For baptism to be valid there also has to be intent (e.g. an actor being baptised in a play isn't validly baptised). I've not been able to find an Anglican view on JW baptisms, but the RCC argument is that they aren't valid because there is no intent to perform a Trinitarian baptism, since the JWs explicitly reject the Trinity as part of the baptism ceremony.

There is on the other hand some scope for fudge here in that someone who misunderstands the Trinity out of ignorance is still considered capable of performing a valid baptism.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
How about God is not persuaded, or disuaded, because of magic words, magic rituals, or anything else we humans can do.

How about God loves us not because we get things "right" but because God is good and God is love.

So, getting baptism "wrong" is . . . just possibly not all that much of an issue for God.

In my semi-Reformed understanding, the sacraments aren't something we "do"-- it's where we stand back and point to what
God has done and say, "wow!". So if baptism is about noticing and celebrating what God has done for us, it would be pretty much impossible to "get it wrong".
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Therefore, both paedobaptists and credobaptists agree that it is appropriate to celebrate the believers' growing, decisive response with a public affirmation of faith. Paedobaptists do this thru confirmation, credobaptists do this thru believer baptism.

That might not be the best argument to make with our Orthodox brethren.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
But isn't that the problem, when people bring their child to be baptised possibly due to family custom but seem to have no idea of the Faith and have no desire to be part of the Visible Church? Is such a baptism in any way meaningful? [Baptist Trainfan]
No it isn't, and any vicar, pastor or priest who just bows to the demands of parishioners and not to the demands of his conscience is not fit for office. No infant should be baptised who has not at least one baptised and believing parent, (living or deceased). If living that parent should be enquired upon to give witness 'of the hope that is in them'. 1 Pe. 3:15. If the minister is not satisfied that the parent has sufficient grasp of the faith, then unless there are special circumstances the infant should not be baptised until the parent has been sufficiently evangelised. (i.e. made acquainted with the Gospel).

quote:
I know you will say that they have shown some faith merely by asking for the baptism, and that we shouldn't try to judge what's going on in peoples' hearts and minds. There's truth in that, but it seems a bit of a "let-out" to me, if I'm honest. [Baptist Trainfan]
In the Church of England, it is a legal obligation for the vicar, priest, minister to baptise any infant brought to him by a parishioner for baptism. If either parent declares themselves baptised and believing then that is considered evidence enough to baptise the infant. What extra evidence could be demanded? Even adults coming for baptism are capable of miscomprehension of what they are asking. Even adult catechumens may be insincere. To what extent can the church question the suitability of baptism candidates, either adult or infant, without limiting God's prerogative to accept and bless whomever He will, whenever He chooses?
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
I'm on a bit of a journey as far as my understanding of baptism goes.

I went through the baptismal rite of the Church of England as an infant in the 1980s. I took the decision in 2005 to become Orthodox and was received into the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2006.

Eastern Orthodoxy generally doesn't accept non-Orthodox baptisms, (whether done in infancy or adulthood is of no relevance as far as the efficacy of the sacrament is concerned). However, the practical approach taken to receiving people baptised in other Christian confessions has always varied depending on a number of factors - the form of baptism used (words, triple immersion, &c.) the closeness or otherwise of the baptising body to Orthodoxy in terms of faith and praxis, pastoral concerns, and culture, among others. In my then diocese, for someone coming to Orthodoxy from Anglicanism, the custom was to receive by baptism. So I was baptised in 2006.

As one of the initial reasons for my move to Orthodoxy was to do with recognising myself as unbaptised and outside the Church and desiring to remedy this, this posed no challenge for me - in fact, had I been given the choice, I still would have opted for baptism.

I no longer belong to Eastern Orthodox Church, but rather to the Western Orthodox Church, and it seems that my new home does indeed accept non-Orthodox baptisms as truly being the Mystery of Holy Baptism, persons being so baptised being admitted to Communion without being received into Orthodoxy, provided they confess that the Holy Things are really and truly the Body and Blood of the Saviour.

This raises a number of questions for me. The obvious one is what to make of my 2006 baptism. For me, in the preparation for that event, during it, and ever since then, that has been my defining moment of entry into the Church. If my new church home recognises my infant baptism, then what happened in 2006? The Anglican priest who baptised me as an infant was no innovator, so there is no reason to think he might have baptised me "in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier", or any similar strangeness. The only thing that might call it into question is that a little water was poured on my head rather than me actually being fully baptised in the water, but even this is permissible in Orthodoxy, in certain circumstances, where a normal baptism is not possible for whatever reason. So it does seem that the rite I went through as an infant ticks the right boxes for recognition.

Another question to be raised, then, is one of the theology of recognition of non-Orthodox baptism, which I'm sure will have repercussions as far as ecclesiology goes. For my part, I found love and grace outside of Orthodoxy at a time when I found it severely wanting within certain sections of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and this personal experience raised a number of ecclesiological questions for me, and led to a reassessment of my previous stance of forming a position based on Scripture, the fathers, councils, and liturgical tradition alone. The place for personal experience in this is something I still need to explore further.

I think an email to my bishop with my questions might be in order.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In my semi-Reformed understanding, the sacraments aren't something we "do"-- it's where we stand back and point to what God has done and say, "wow!". So if baptism is about noticing and celebrating what God has done for us, it would be pretty much impossible to "get it wrong".

And I’d amplify that to say they’re pointing to—effective signs of—what God has done, is doing and will do.

But yes, in a Reformed understanding the sacraments are always primarily about God's actions and secondarily about our responses to those actions.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Therefore, both paedobaptists and credobaptists agree that it is appropriate to celebrate the believers' growing, decisive response with a public affirmation of faith. Paedobaptists do this thru confirmation, credobaptists do this thru believer baptism.

That might not be the best argument to make with our Orthodox brethren.
Correct. We do not have confirmation.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That's naughty, so let me be naughty in return. A "true Baptist" would say that they follow OT practice (eg Samuel) in offering Dedication/Thanksgiving; they might also say that centuries of indiscriminate wrong practice have led to families expecting "something" from the Church for their babies, so they offer Dedication as a concession to that expectation.

That may work east of the pond, I don't know. I doubt many low-church Protestants in the United States have any such expectation. They may not even know that paedobaptists exist. They likely don't think of Catholics as Christians at all, or realize Orfies exist.

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
How about God is not persuaded, or disuaded, because of magic words, magic rituals, or anything else we humans can do.

The purpose of baptism is not to persuade God at all. This is a category error.

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I note that it is not all that unusual to see a person moving from, say the American Baptist tradition, to the Southern Baptist tradition to be rebaptized, though I do not think it is expected.

There are Baptist churches in these parts where it would be expected, even for people moving from one Southern Baptist church to another. And it can also happen when people “recommit themselves to Christ.”*
How sad that people whose name contains the word "baptist" should be so ignorant of the scriptures about it.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think evangelical churches offer dedication services because that's what some church members and enquirers want. IOW, it's demand-led. Baby welcoming rituals are universal, after all.

Yes. That's exactly what I said. Baby welcoming rituals are universal, and the Christian one is called "baptism." It was just missing from low-church Protestantism for 500 years, and now lacking it, they're inventing something else.
 
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on :
 
I did my Confirmation preparation whilst at college. (The Chaplain there later went on to become principal of Cuddesdon.) Since my ‘experience’, if I can put it that way, of baptism, was the moment of my conversion a few weeks before I arrived at college, we had some very interesting conversations. Taking my hyper-evangelicalism on board, he got me feeling very sympathetically towards Anglican ‘priests’, as he insisted on calling them, who had to deal with non-believing parents asking for an infant baptism/christening to be performed. The result is that now when I have doubts, although most of the time I deal with them by remembering my conversion, I do occasionally resolve them by remembering my Chaplain’s quotation from Luther: “I have been baptised!”

Then I married a Baptist, and a strict Baptist at that. It’s amazing how she managed to become a pillar of a C of E Church without actually getting confirmed, but she eventually took - I was about to say ‘the plunge!’ - but she’d already taken the plunge many years before: she has since got confirmed, and is now training to be an LLM. At one point, some years ago, we nearly left our Church to join the Baptist Church in a neighbouring town, and I would have quite cheerfully accepted being a second class citizen there as I would not have been interested in any sort of Baptism/Rebaptism.

Such is the breadth of C of E evangelicalism: We had one vicar who put so many obstacles in the way of apparently non-believing parents that they tended to go to neighbouring parishes instead. Our present vicar has in practice binned even the Thanksgiving For The Birth of a Child Service, accepts everybody, and welcomes parents and supporters as members of the Christian family alongside the freshly baptised infant. I’m not sure if it convinces the people who attend but it certainly convinces me. My wife really did used to mutter “won’t see them again” as the baptism parties left the church for the pub opposite, but she is now more Anglican than I am on this and other matters.

While I am impressed with the theological arguments that have been given in this thread, I remain pragmatic - whatever works for the conscience of the vicar.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
...he got me feeling very sympathetically towards Anglican ‘priests’, as he insisted on calling them...

What else would he call them? That's what the Church of England calls them, no?

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That's naughty, so let me be naughty in return. A "true Baptist" would say that they follow OT practice (eg Samuel) in offering Dedication/Thanksgiving; they might also say that centuries of indiscriminate wrong practice have led to families expecting "something" from the Church for their babies, so they offer Dedication as a concession to that expectation.

That may work east of the pond, I don't know. I doubt many low-church Protestants in the United States have any such expectation. They may not even know that paedobaptists exist.
I think this is a cultural difference. We have a state church in England, and it's generally the "go-to" church for people who aren't really believers but like some of the trains such as going to Christmas midnight mass, or having a church wedding/funeral, or "wetting the baby's head" as a family tradition.

There is a cultural expectation arising from this that might not exist in cultured where there is no state church.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
And thereby lies a problem, as you have hinted: inconsistency between the conscience and practice of the Vicar of St. Agatha's, St. Bede's in the next parish and St. Zebedee's in the next town. (And that's before the Methodists and URC have even got a look-in, never mind the Baptists!)

[ 01. January 2018, 22:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
...he got me feeling very sympathetically towards Anglican ‘priests’, as he insisted on calling them...

Pardon me, but why are you using scare quotes around the word priests? That's what they are.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That's naughty, so let me be naughty in return. A "true Baptist" would say that they follow OT practice (eg Samuel) in offering Dedication/Thanksgiving; they might also say that centuries of indiscriminate wrong practice have led to families expecting "something" from the Church for their babies, so they offer Dedication as a concession to that expectation.

That may work east of the pond, I don't know. I doubt many low-church Protestants in the United States have any such expectation. They may not even know that paedobaptists exist. They likely don't think of Catholics as Christians at all, or realize Orfies exist.
As one who has lived his 5+ decades surrounded by Southern Baptists in the American South, I can confirm that what BT says is indeed what one hears as the reason for dedicating babies. And yes, they know we paedobaptists exist—I’ve been told more than once that I haven’t really been baptized. And many a Southern Baptists I’ve known has insisted on calling the baptism of an infant a “christening," not because of any Anglophilia but to underscore that they don't consider it a baptism.

As for Catholics and Orfies, yeah.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Not universally throughout every diocese.

*cough* Sydney *cough*
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Sorry, my post above was to Rossweisse.

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Eastern Orthodoxy generally doesn't accept non-Orthodox baptisms, (whether done in infancy or adulthood is of no relevance as far as the efficacy of the sacrament is concerned).

Whereas I joined one of those woolly-liberal Archdioceses [Biased] that took me as I was, receiving me via Chrismation (Antiochian). I did ponder at the time what I would've done had they said the first (Anglican) baptism wasn't valid... I think I would've gone ahead: I was lost, and willing to accept the rules to let me in.

I took it, and was told, that anything that may've been lacking (in case there were any fears) was covered by the Chrismation. But Anglican Baptism was valid in their eyes. That seemed fine to me. I did know, as per The Scrumpmeister, that the Russians believed differently: but as I was with the Antiochians it didn't bother me much - except for the occasional flicker of doubt as to whether Chrismation would be enough. That's me: all down to my works!

[My sister was re-baptised into a fundamentalist (think Southern Baptist in Australia) church -- heaven knows what my parents did: one to Orthodoxy, one to Southern Baptist! [Help] ]


Best wishes with the email to your bishop, The Scrumpmeister. I hope he can provide the comfort and direction you seek.

[ 01. January 2018, 22:51: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Not universally throughout every diocese.

*cough* Sydney *cough*

[Smile]

True enough, but wabale's example is from the Church of England, where they are most definitely called priests in their formal letters of ordination, in the ordination rites both in the Book of Common Prayer and in Common Worship (and the Alternative Service Book before it), and in the Canons of the Church of England, as well as in everyday speech in many parts of the C of E.

The person wabale says was "insisting" on calling them priests was just using the normal word for them, hence the confusion.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
...he got me feeling very sympathetically towards Anglican ‘priests’, as he insisted on calling them...

Pardon me, but why are you using scare quotes around the word priests? That's what they are.
Along with all other believers. [Devil]
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Sorry, my post above was to Rossweisse.

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Eastern Orthodoxy generally doesn't accept non-Orthodox baptisms, (whether done in infancy or adulthood is of no relevance as far as the efficacy of the sacrament is concerned).

Whereas I joined one of those woolly-liberal Archdioceses [Biased] that took me as I was, receiving me via Chrismation (Antiochian). I did ponder at the time what I would've done had they said the first (Anglican) baptism wasn't valid... I think I would've gone ahead: I was lost, and willing to accept the rules to let me in.

I took it, and was told, that anything that may've been lacking (in case there were any fears) was covered by the Chrismation. But Anglican Baptism was valid in their eyes. That seemed fine to me. I did know, as per The Scrumpmeister, that the Russians believed differently: but as I was with the Antiochians it didn't bother me much - except for the occasional flicker of doubt as to whether Chrismation would be enough. That's me: all down to my works!

Incidentally, the Russian church's official position on specifically Catholic sacraments is one of recognition - not by economia but flat-out recognition, (although many in ROCOR are unhappy to acknowledge the fact, if they are aware of it - I certainly wasn't until shortly before my last days there). It simply wasn't discussed in the run-up to the rapprochement because it has been the Russian church's formal position for centuries, long before the split. It's one of the differences in trends in the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR, particularly in the way that priests are received if they convert.

quote:

[My sister was re-baptised into a fundamentalist (think Southern Baptist in Australia) church -- heaven knows what my parents did: one to Orthodoxy, one to Southern Baptist! [Help] ]

Hehe. I'll bet certain conversations just never came up at family gatherings.

quote:
Best wishes with the email to your bishop, The Scrumpmeister. I hope he can provide the comfort and direction you seek.
Thank you. I'm just glad to have a bishop I can approach openly about these things.

[ 01. January 2018, 23:14: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
 
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
...he got me feeling very sympathetically towards Anglican ‘priests’, as he insisted on calling them...

What else would he call them? That's what the Church of England calls them, no?

I was recalling a conversation I had over half a century ago, and giving a glimpse of my mindset at that time - perhaps a little mischievously.
No, of course the Chaplain would not have called them anything other than ‘priest’, but at the time the word made me twitch because I was convinced it encapsulated most of what was wrong with the Anglican church which I was thinking of joining. As the Chaplain was an historian as well as a theologian, and History was my subject, I am pretty sure that in the course of our Confirmation conversations he outlined the history of both the word ‘priest’ and the word ‘minister’ in the long history of the Church of England. And yes, they are both there.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
And thereby lies a problem, as you have hinted: inconsistency between the conscience and practice of the Vicar of St. Agatha's, St. Bede's in the next parish and St. Zebedee's in the next town. (And that's before the Methodists and URC have even got a look-in, never mind the Baptists!) Baptist Trainfan
What 'Problem' exactly? How can you be sure that every adult coming for baptism is actually believing with 'saving faith'? Ananias and Saphira were almost certainly 'baptised'. It didn't work out well for them though, did it. Acts 5:1-11.
 
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
...he got me feeling very sympathetically towards Anglican ‘priests’, as he insisted on calling them...

Pardon me, but why are you using scare quotes around the word priests? That's what they are.
Hi High Church Valkyrie
I intended that entire sentence, not just the word ‘priest’ as an insight into what I was thinking about ministry and priesthood at that time, and from my end of the ecclesiological spectrum. The point I was trying to make was that I was learning from someone on the other end of the ecclesiological spectrum to respect the job they do irrespective of what they are officially or otherwise called. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by SvitlanaV2
quote:
I'm interested in why he went through the process of re-baptism if he doesn't want to be part of the worshipping life of the church. Or do you mean that he doesn't want to attend services at your church?
Not just “my” church: I gave 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.

posted by Bishop’s Finger
quote:
Perhaps he's presently involved with a weekday cell or house group?
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Not universally throughout every diocese.

*cough* Sydney *cough*

I assume you mean use of the appellation of priest. We always make a point when talking to the Abp (even ++Peter of sad memory) or the regional bishop of using the description. All good fun.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
. ...Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

It was not. I think scare quotes are best avoided if one wishes to avoid giving unintentional offense.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
We have a state church in England, and it's generally the "go-to" church for people who aren't really believers but like some of the trains such as going to Christmas midnight mass, or having a church wedding/funeral, or "wetting the baby's head" as a family tradition.

There is a cultural expectation arising from this that might not exist in cultured where there is no state church.

And because the USA is still a much more religious country than the UK, I wonder if it's hard for Americans to get their heads around a situation whereby non-believing parents and non-believing Godparents are presenting babies for baptism. Would mousethief's Orthodox Church above be routinely sanguine about this?

Myself, I'm a pragmatist, and I believe in a division of labour. We need churches that can be the tolerant, welcoming faces for the whole community. Others, namely the evangelical churches, with their particular niche in generating commitment and drawing people in, need to have a way of emphasising personal transformation. The different attitudes towards baptism reflect this division, probably along a spectrum.

It's difficult for one denomination to try to cater for everyone, as happens with the CofE. I think the USA is very fortunate to have churches with such a wide range of approaches to baptism.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
And thereby lies a problem, as you have hinted: inconsistency between the conscience and practice of the Vicar of St. Agatha's, St. Bede's in the next parish and St. Zebedee's in the next town. (And that's before the Methodists and URC have even got a look-in, never mind the Baptists!) Baptist Trainfan
What 'Problem' exactly?
The problem that one Priest (or church) will welcome a candidate with open arms, but that another won't - this can be confusing! (qv Svitlana's post above for a slightly different perspective).

[ 02. January 2018, 06:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :
 
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?

Replace "Faith is" with "Relationships are" and "credo-baptism is" with "marriage ceremonies are" and you have an interesting parallel. What is the point of a marriage ceremony? To make a public statement about your commitment to one another. What is the point of credo-baptism? to make a public statement about your commitment to God.

When times get tough, you can look back and say "I made a public commitment in front of all those people, so I will persevere even though things have got tough."
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I can't help wondering if other religions have this problem. Are there Jews who insist that voluntary, adult circumcision is the only valid form? Do some Sikhs say the a child can take on what it means to be a Sikh via parental promises on their behalf?

Or is it just Christianity where there are such strident differences in the theology of a fundamental concept leading to essentially opposite understandings?

Maybe the truth is that there are some distinct things that all religions (and possibly all other non-religious lifelong activities) do. And that this includes things that the group does to recognise a new child's life, a thing that adults do to show (perhaps even "show off") their commitment, something unique and one-off, something repeated at regular intervals. A thing that is personal, a thing that is corporate.

I'm not sure it is so surprising that different christian beliefs understand baptism to occupy all of these roles.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
L'organist, a shudder went down my spine as I read your last post. It described almost to a tee where I was at as a young graduate. Things were almost cult-like and see were encouraged not to move away and find work elsewhere unless there was a very similar or 'related church' (ideally) in the immediate vicinity.

I can't say this damaged my employment prospects indefinitely as I had a non-vocational degree and was barely employable until I made myself so a few years later after a series of false starts and dead-ends.

But even so, a worrying mindset and trend.

If it does represent a trend then it's a worrying development within HTB style churches that seems to echo what we saw in the restorationist 'new churches' of the 1980s.

My impression, though, these days is that such earnestness tends to wear off more quickly than it did back in the day. One of my concerns, though, would be that this young chap may very quickly get hurt and abandon the faith altogether.

I've bored people sufficiently over years on these boards to rehearse it all here now, but if a PM might help then please PM me and I might be able to suggest things you can do to at least prepare for various eventualities ...
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
The problem that one Priest (or church) will welcome a candidate with open arms, but that another won't - this can be confusing! (qv Svitlana's post above for a slightly different perspective). Baptist Trainfan
But adult baptism by total immersion presents exactly the same problem, does it not?

Different denominations have different levels of what they expect from baptism candidates by way of confession of faith. Some are quite 'choosy' and make sure that the candidate has a grasp of the sect or denomination's particular tenets of belief, i.e. what they consider 'fundamental' to 'true' or 'real' faith. Others will virtually dunk all comers if it will increase the size of their congregation and make the books balance better.

Same problem so not peculiar to CofE per se. The training of catechumens has slackened considerably since AD100. I see the 'problem' you mention as being a churchwide one rather than a peculiarity thrown up by paedobaptism.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Rdrefcofe (or something...):
quote:

Others will virtually dunk all comers if it will increase the size of their congregation and make the books balance better.

I think it might look like that at times, but I'm not sure it could be said that this is truly what is going on. Most clergy I know - regardless of denomination - would expect to see less than 1% come back in any meaningful way. They may have been very well prepared, they may even have been required to attend for a time beforehand and they themselves may even have had some past connection. Despite this, they don't return for many and various reasons, not least the fact that culturally Christianity has become a victim of its own success. Essentially I think a lot of clergy see anyone who presents themselves for baptism as an opportunity for education about the Christian faith and when it is a child to baptised - depending of course on theology - they don't want to refuse the child an important step in the Christian journey regardless of how they might feel about the parents motivations. The risk of refusal of baptism might engender and ingrain a hurt and hatred towards the church rather than garnering respect; so none of these aspects has to do with money or getting numbers on books.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
The risk of refusal of baptism might engender and ingrain a hurt and hatred towards the church rather than garnering respect; so none of these aspects has to do with money or getting numbers on books Fletcher Christian
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.

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.

Let's get our priorities in line with St Paul regarding baptism and all these divisive side issues would then be rightly seen as trivial.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
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 gospel" 1 Cor.1:17.

Recalling the final command of Jesus to his disciples, have you not rather over-stated your case?

Matthew 28: Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.

I'm not sure this is entirely fair. As we've discussed many times, there are a spectrum of beliefs on the "baptist" end of the Evangelical tradition. Of those there are some who will only baptise adults that have already shown themselves to be committed to the congregation via regular attendance.

Of those, some do not consider baptism by anyone else (unless done by someone they can vouch for personally) to be valid. Not even other baptists.

Baptismal candidates in those circumstances surely can't be under any illusions about what it is that they're letting themselves in for (ie that the baptism - over and beyond anything else - is being used as a membership rite for that particular congregation).

But I do take your point more generally. I think there is an expectation amongst many groups who practice "believers" baptism that young people aged 16-18 will want to be baptised and there is a lot of pressure put on them to make a commitment.

The confusion that regularly arises in those cirucmstances is that young people struggle to disentangle their own faith from the faith of their parents. For some this isn't a problem, for many the crisis comes some years after the baptism.

quote:
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.
Mmm. Well without wanting to start a war with bible references, I think many would consider the Lord's words in Matthew 28:19 to suggest that making disciples and baptising is quite important. I'm not sure that this urge can be so easily dismissed as you do in the paragraph above.

quote:
Let's get our priorities in line with St Paul regarding baptism and all these divisive side issues would then be rightly seen as trivial.
Or, I suppose, one might take the commands of Jesus seriously - and see that need to make disciples and to baptise them is urgent.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
The problem that one Priest (or church) will welcome a candidate with open arms, but that another won't - this can be confusing! (qv Svitlana's post above for a slightly different perspective).
But adult baptism by total immersion presents exactly the same problem, does it not?
I think not, although there are obviously inconsistencies between churches. The reason I think this is that very few, if any, churches will baptise as a believer someone they don't know. Usually a relationship with the candidate has developed over time, so even a refusal to baptise "now" can be explained (although it can, I'm sure, cause difficulties).

The problem as I see it in the CofE is that a person totally unknown to the church can come and virtually demand baptism for their child. Yes, I know that most churches would insist on some kind of baptismal preparation but that is, I submit, still a bit different to (say) a teenager who has professed conversion, got involved with the church over some months and then asks for baptism.

As it happens, I have had people turning up at church and asking to be baptised; I have never said "no" at that first meeting but have always invited them to come and have a chat with me about their understanding of baptism and why they're asking for it. They've never taken up the invitation.

PS This crossed with Cheesy's helpful post.

[ 02. January 2018, 11:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose, one might take the commands of Jesus seriously - and see that need to make disciples and to baptise them is urgent.

Yes. But is the charge "to-make-disciples-and-baptise-them" or "to make disciples and, once you've done that, to baptise them"?

This seems a trivial point to make, but it's not: do we see baptism as an essential part of the initial command of Jesus, or is his emphasis on "making" disciples with baptism as the natural consequence of that?

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?
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
I do know someone who was baptised twice by believers baptism. It may even have been in the same congregation.

I also know of people who were twice baptised as infants, once in an emergency when they were not expected to live and again in church with all the ceremony when they did.

Jengie
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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?

You seem to me to be making an argument based on punctuation. A simpler solution is that the gospel writer had a different idea of baptism to Paul (or whoever wrote the epistle).
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
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? Baptist Trainfan
Quite so, I absolutely agree. Paul's priorities regarding baptism were absolutely in line with the great commission. As you rightly point out the priority is FIRST acquainting enquirers with the gospel, then encouraging them to sacramentally express their allegiance to Christ and his teaching by being baptised 'In the name of The Father, Son AND Holy Spirit'. The spoken formula is not what is important, it is the understanding that the catechumen should have of the comprehensive threefold ministry of God which then encompasses the rest of their New Life in Christ.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose, one might take the commands of Jesus seriously - and see that need to make disciples and to baptise them is urgent.

Yes. But is the charge "to-make-disciples-and-baptise-them" or "to make disciples and, once you've done that, to baptise them"?

This seems a trivial point to make, but it's not: do we see baptism as an essential part of the initial command of Jesus, or is his emphasis on "making" disciples with baptism as the natural consequence of that?

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 would suggest that the language of the command is to be understood as:

Make disciples by baptising and teaching.

Baptism, alone, does not make someone a disciple, but neither does teaching.

I think it is a little unfair on St Paul in saying that he did not think baptism important. (Rather, it was that who did the baptising is not important). Romans 6 is pretty strong on the significance of baptism. It is the acting out of one's death and new life.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
I would suggest that the language of the command is to be understood as:

Make disciples by baptising and teaching.

Baptism, alone, does not make someone a disciple, but neither does teaching.

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.

quote:
I think it is a little unfair on St Paul in saying that he did not think baptism important. (Rather, it was that who did the baptising is not important). Romans 6 is pretty strong on the significance of baptism. It is the acting out of one's death and new life.
Quite so. But baptism is not only confined in its symbolic meaning to 'death and new life'. There are more references in the NT to baptism as a symbolic 'cleansing from sin' than there are for death and resurrection. Both symbolic meanings are therefore appropriate and neither exclusive of the other.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
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.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Frankly I was appalled and would normally be extremely concerned that this young man is getting involved with some sort of sect - except that the church in the case is an HTB plant.

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.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
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...)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
L'organist, a shudder went down my spine as I read your last post.

Mine too. I'm all for commitment, but ...

[ 02. January 2018, 14:26: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.

The verses you quote are the basis for the justification and adoption of it by the CofE though. There is little question that the 'believers' written of were already valid disciples of Jesus Christ, (having been baptised in His name), the validity of their baptism was not in question, the only question as far as the apostles at Jerusalem were concerned, was whether the whole process of regeneration had taken place for the Samarian 'believers' or if there was an important further stage that they had 'missed out' on.

Thus they were encouraged to believe that the laying on of the apostles hands had facilitated the completion of these disciple's faith journey enabling them to fully serve Christ in the Power of The Holy Spirit.

Baptism is indeed a prerequisite to confirmation as a matter of Church Procedure, but not necessarily in the scheme of God Himself, who is free to graciously dispense his Holy Spirit whenever and upon whom ever God pleases, as He did in the House of Cornelius. Acts 10. And as described by Jesus himself to Nicodemus. John 3.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Frankly I was appalled and would normally be extremely concerned that this young man is getting involved with some sort of sect - except that the church in the case is an HTB plant.

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.

Unless of course a proscribed form of baptism liturgy was used in the first place (non Trinitarian?)

If it helps, we don't rebaptise at this Baptist church in this neck of the woods as a matter of course. It's open membership on a statement of faith if you join from another church or denomination. If someone wants to make a public statement of their faith by being baptised that's another matter.

If the church involved is an Anglican Church and we are hearing the full story, then this is something to be very concerned about. It's smacks of a works based salvation.

(Mind you HTB and like minded churches seem to have a pretty big influence to an outsider's eye like mine. My theology isn't so far removed from theirs - I'm probably slightly more of a closed evangelical than them - but I find their way of accessing the levers of power rather chilling).
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

1. As with other Biblically based concepts, (such as women receiving communion), Confirmation is not specifically named or written of, as such, in scripture.

2. ...the laying on of the apostles hands had facilitated the completion of these disciple's faith journey enabling them to fully serve Christ in the Power of The Holy Spirit.


1. Take care that you don't read something into the text that isn't there or is not intended.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Thanks Mr G.
BTW your inbox is full [Smile]

What a popular boy you are.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I would have thought that Cannon Law is a big gun ...

I had the same thought.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
From time to time, St Sanity's baptises those from a nearby SA congregation - as well as welcoming them at Eucharists.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
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.

The problem with describing the Holy Spirit as a 'she' (apart from the fact that he is described as the Spirit of Jesus - which confuses things!) is that as I heard Andrew walker suggest once, if the Holy Spirit is a she, then being 'sent' by Father and Son, tends to make 'her' a subordinate female to the masculine persons of the Trinity.

It is akin to the unfortunate pictures of the Holy Trinity that depicts the Godhead as an old man, a young man and a dove...

Or as I describe it: 2 blokes and a bird.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
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.

I never used the word "obvious". And I don't see why it only "makes sense" in "our specific religious contexts".

[ 03. January 2018, 10:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I never used the word "obvious". And I don't see why it only "makes sense" in "our specific religious contexts".

You don't understand why your logic only works in a Baptist context? Sorry, I can't explain that to you.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
... 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). ....

If this is a problem, it is a quirk of English grammar, not theology.

The Holy Spirit is a person, but not being incarnate, has no gender. English has three singular pronouns, 'he', 'she' and 'it'. One is used for a male person, one for a female person, and one for a thing, whether physical or abstract. Although one sometimes encounters references to the Holy Spirit using 'it' that is very seriously misleading. As soon as one thinks about it, one also realises that it is seriously derogatory.

It is conversational usage to use 'they', which is plural, to refer to an unknown person, where you don't know who they are yet, but the more pompous grammarians don't quite approve of it. Besides, usage doesn't allow it of a person once one knows who one is talking about.

So, a person, to be a person, has to be 'he' or 'she'.

Until the mid-1980s. that was no problem. The Holy Spirit was 'he'. It's much more important that the Holy Spirit is marked as a person than it is that that also means grammar has to allocate him a gender. Since the 1980s this has become a bit of a 'scratch-where-it-itches'. Because 'she' is an even stronger gender marker than 'he', using 'she' as the pronoun for the Holy Spirit, is making a statement, for its own sake, and one that would be theologically both more erroneous and distracting.


The bit about other languages doesn't really work or offer anything sensible. English is unusual among European languages in having the very rigid gender rule that gender is determined strictly by ontology. As above, a male person is 'he'. A female person is 'she'. A thing is 'it'. Virtually the only exceptions are the limited use of 'she' to describe ships, and how far one can get away with referring to a newborn baby as 'it' - in which case, definitely not in the hearing of his or her mother.

In French, Welsh, and also Hebrew, which as it happens is not a European language, everything has to be grammatically masculine or feminine. But that doesn't make tables or ideas male or female. In Latin, Greek and German there's also a neuter gender. But in all these, there's no automatic correlation between grammatical gender and objective reality.

As it happens, 'spirit' is feminine in Hebrew, neuter in Greek and masculine in Latin. But that doesn't reveal anything.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
It so happens that 25 years ago, I assisted a friend in the production of his MA thesis, which was on Colossians 2:11-12, the Circumcision/Baptism analogy and Infant Baptism. It was concerned with the development of these in the patristic period. I have a copy of the published article which was a summary of that thesis.

From this, I gather that the earliest certain references to the practice of infant baptism were from Tertullian (c200) and Origen (later). Tertullian objected to the practice. Origen supported it, and also knew about the analogy between circumcision and baptism, but did not use that analogy in support of infant baptism.

Cyprian in a letter written after a synod in 253 uses the analogy as an argument for infant baptism.

Moving on, from the article:
quote:
Although writing nearly a century later than Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen gives an insight into how the analogy with circumcision may first have been used in connection with infant baptism. Gregory assumes that repentance and faith are prerequisites for baptism: children, he maintains, should normally be about three years old before they are baptized since at this age they are at least capable of a partial understanding of what baptism means. However, he uses the analogy between circumcision and baptism to justify the baptism of infants in extremis.

I think it is clear that the practice of baptising infants developed fairly slowly in the early church, and not all by any means were in favour. I get the impression that it was more common in the West than the East.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
The infants of believing parent(s) are declared by scripture to be 'Holy' 1 Cor. 7:14, It is according to the faith of just one or both parents that their child is rendered 'holy to God' and not 'unclean'. Therefore the child has a RIGHT to be baptised as a sign and seal of its associate membership of The Church of Jesus Christ, who died for him/her.

I have problems with the idea that if an infant is baptized, he or she becomes only an associate member of the church.

This fosters the idea that a young person cannot receive communion until a later date. Some denominations will have first communion around ten or will expect the person to be "confirmed" before communion

It is my understanding that once a person, regardless of age, becomes baptized, they are full members of the church. At my congregation we allow even toddlers to take communion because they are full members of the church and, therefore, have all the rights and privileges of church membership.

Granted, there are some legal concerns with that since in Washington State a person cannot legally vote in a corporation until that person is 16 and congregations are considered legal corporations, but kids don't want to sit through boring meetings anyway.

Just a small point about the difference between the idea of "confirmation" vs "Reaffirmation of the Faith:" confirmation implies there are two parts to the process, a) the individual confirms the faith in which he or she is baptized, and b) the church confirms that the individual has sufficient faith to, shall we say, cross the bridge. However, in "Reaffirmation of the Faith" it is solely on the individual to reaffirm his or her faith--the church has no need to confirm anything.

While I am at it, I was raised in a conservative Lutheran Synod. That Synod would have problems accepting the baptism of a former member of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ because they do not have a traditional view of the Trinity. To them, there are three different gods in the Godhead. Likewise, in Jehovah Witness, they have a modality view of God, meaning Jesus is a little less divine than Jehovah. And I just heard from a pastor of that Synod saying it is having problems with people that are baptized in the name of "the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier" which some other denominations are beginning to allow as a way of getting around the gender issues traditional names for God presents.

Myself, I have little problem with the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier language. I still would hesitate to accept a Jehovah Witness baptism, and I am undecided about an LDS baptism. Therefore I would likly rebaptize if a Mormon came forward, and definitely babtized if a Witness converted.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
As it happens, 'spirit' is feminine in Hebrew, neuter in Greek and masculine in Latin. But that doesn't reveal anything.
Quite so, very mysterious, yet ironically it is The Holy Spirit who has revealed almost everything we know about God, and that is in reference mostly to the life, character and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

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

In light of what you say however, perhaps I should have said "Maybe that is why we all find the Holy Spirit the most mysterious 'person' of the Trinity."
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier?
No, a thousand times, no!

Is Jesus not the Creator as well as the Father?
Is God (the Father) not in Christ (The Son) reconciling the world to himself and therefore actively in the task of redemption?
Indeed, did Jesus not ask the Father to sanctify us?

I think the feminists amongst us are merely trying to divide the Trinity into little non-gender specific boxes.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Going to the gender issue of the Word. In the Septuagint it is rhema which is feminine and is often used to as a translation of dabar, the Word of God. Logos is also used as well.

Rhema is the spoken Word of God. Note how the writer of John in the first chapter uses logos instead of rhema.

It really gets crazy to try to give God a gender identity. We describe God using anthropomorphic terms because of our limitations as humans, but as more and more feminist theologians come online, we need to move away from gender-specific pronouns referring to God, in my book.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Myself, I have little problem with the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier language. I still would hesitate to accept a Jehovah Witness baptism, and I am undecided about an LDS baptism. Therefore I would likly rebaptize if a Mormon came forward, and definitely babtized if a Witness converted. Gramps49
Very good points, all of them. My concern though would not be about whatever language the LDS or JW proselyte was baptised with but the practical mechanics of how they believe their future walk with God as a Christian shall now proceed.

Intellectual acceptance on their behalf of standard Trinitarian formulas are not really enough, (nobody really understands them anyway).

I would like to see in them a declared reliance upon Jesus Christ as both Lord and Saviour, for everything concerning human salvation and the forgiveness of sins, and a pledge to cooperate with the holy spirit in their ongoing sanctification.

I would then leave them safely in the very capable hands of their Lord and Saviour.
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
Sorry to put in a tangent - Gramps49, in the Church in Wales, ANYONE who has been baptised may receive communion. In the case of children, it is with the parents/guardians permission, and non alcoholic wine is made available if the parents/guardians are unhappy about the child receiving alcohol.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
On a thread some months ago, there was some discussion about somebody encountering the use of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier as a baptismal formula, and whether that was valid or not. I seem to recollect that the almost universal view expressed was that it was not, was a travesty and would be worse than Outrage. It would not be recognised as a baptism by anyone else. Worse, a minister using it could even be endangering the eternal status of the unwitting victim on whom they were imposing it.

The CofE requires baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. So a person baptised according to some other formula is not baptised. If there was doubt whether the sacrament had been properly, I'm under the impression it would need to be administered/re-administered conditionally so as to make sure.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Call me old-fashioned (chorus: 'You're old-fashioned!') but I too have grave concerns about tri-partite formularies that don't correlate with 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit.'

A liberal vicar I know regularly uses the formula when pronouncing the Benediction, 'In the name of God, our Creator, Redeemer and Friend ...'

Yes, God is all those things, but what's he saying here? Is it a Unitarian formula by the back door?

You could be a Modalist and refer to God as 'Creator, Redeemer and Friend.'

No, no, a thousand times no ...

Of course God is spirit and gender-neutral in that respect - the Holy Spirit isn't a fella, but he's not a woman either ... although yes, Sophia or Divine Wisdom is given a feminine sense in the Old Testament but it depends on how much weight you put on that in an ontological sense ...

'Ruach' is feminine in Hebrew, I think - as has been alluded to upthread.

But no, no, no, let's have 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' please.

Give me that ol' time religion, good religion as it used to be, ol' time religion ... Hallelujah good enough for me ...
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
......That Synod would have problems accepting the baptism of a former member of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ because they do not have a traditional view of the Trinity. To them, there are three different gods in the Godhead. ...

Not only that, but they believe in a "plurality of Gods," and that any right-living Mormon man can become a god (with his own planet and a collection of wives with whom to sire "spirit children") himself.

This is polytheism, of course, and not Christianity as most of us would recognize it. I don't think it's just the words that matter, but the way in which those words are understood.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
there was some discussion about somebody encountering the use of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier as a baptismal formula, and whether that was valid or not. I seem to recollect that the almost universal view expressed was that it was not, was a travesty and would be worse than Outrage. It would not be recognised as a baptism by anyone else. Enoch
The whole point of baptism is to establish a point of delineation between an old life and a new life in Christ. The words used i.e. In the name of The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not a magic formula which needs must be followed in case the whole shebang goes wrong and the person doesn't get properly 'saved'. The 'saved' part of the whole thing has already happened by the Grace of Almighty God. The whole ceremony is only a public declaration of that which has already occurred.

quote:
For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ; and I got dunked in the name of Abba, Jesus and Spirit of God; and I got poured over in the name of The Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier and I got properly dunked in the name of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:11-17

This makes quite clear that baptism is not in the name of anyone, even an apostle, but of God. Theologically speaking then it can be argued that Jesus is acceptable as a name of God. Father is also acceptable as a descriptive name of God. Yahweh and 'I AM' could even be used as names of God. Jesus however is reported by Matthew as saying that baptism should be in the name of all three persons of the godhead. The Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Spirit.

I tend to think that whether we refer to the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit by 'name' is immaterial since we do not HAVE a name for the Holy Spirit, apart from perhaps 'ruach Elohim, 'pneuma etc. and they are descriptions not names.

I have no objection to sticking with good old CofE praxis and using Father, Son and Holy Ghost, though ghost is confusing to the modern theologically untrained mind, so Holy Spirit is probably a better option.

Is is probably not the actual words used that are important though. It is what the baptised person understand them to mean, in terms of just who this baptism is being conferred and bestowed by;

The person dunking them or Almighty God in all three, Persons.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by RdrEmCofE
quote:
I have no objection to sticking with good old CofE praxis and using Father, Son and Holy Ghost, though ghost is confusing to the modern theologically untrained mind, so Holy Spirit is probably a better option.

Is is probably not the actual words used that are important though. It is what the baptised person understand them to mean, in terms of just who this baptism is being conferred and bestowed by;

The person dunking them or Almighty God in all three, Persons.

And its to be profoundly hoped that any such confusion isn't added to by the celebrant choosing In Christ alone as a closing hymn for the ceremony...
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
It is my understanding that once a person, regardless of age, becomes baptized, they are full members of the church. At my congregation we allow even toddlers to take communion because they are full members of the church and, therefore, have all the rights and privileges of church membership.

Without question, this is one of those areas where we have to be careful generalizing, because understandings will differ from tradition to tradition and denomination to denomination. What exactly is understood as the meaning of confirmation would be another one of those areas.

Your understanding, for example, would not be true of my tribe (the PC(USA), which is in full communion with your tribe). Yes, we would say that baptism makes one a member of the church, welcome to receive communion and to receive other ministries of the church. But we also say that only those who have been confirmed/made a public profession of faith can vote in church meetings or be ordained to ordered ministry in the church.

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
The whole point of baptism is to establish a point of delineation between an old life and a new life in Christ.

And here's another one of those areas where understandings will differ. Large swaths of Christianity would disagree that this is "the whole point of baptism."

quote:
The words used i.e. In the name of The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not a magic formula which needs must be followed in case the whole shebang goes wrong and the person doesn't get properly 'saved'. The 'saved' part of the whole thing has already happened by the Grace of Almighty God. The whole ceremony is only a public declaration of that which has already occurred. . . .

Is is probably not the actual words used that are important though. It is what the baptized person understand them to mean, in terms of just who this baptism is being conferred and bestowed by;

The person dunking them or Almighty God in all three, Persons.

And here's yet another one of those areas. Indeed, I'd hazard a guess that the majority of the world's Christians do believe that the precise use of the traditional words is necessary for a valid baptism, if for no other reason than obedience to the command of Christ as recorded in Matthew.

Shoot my tribe is certainly encouraging of appropriate use of inclusive language generally and expansive language about God particularly. And as I already noted above, we'd agree that baptism is an effective sign of what God has done, is doing and will do—it's about God's action, not ours. But the use of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in baptism in non-negotiable.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I wonder which is more important in a baptism - the water or the liturgy used.

Many will insist that they're equally important. Yet there are those above who disapprove of 're-dedication ceremonies' that involve full immersion but avoid baptismal liturgy. But why complain about such ceremonies if they don't actually involve the all-important liturgy and therefore cannot be baptisms?

Indeed, from one angle one could argue that the CofE's quasi-baptismal re-dedications are more theologically acceptable and consistent than what seems to happen in the Baptist churches.

According to what I read here, the Baptists either insist on re-baptism, or else make re-baptism entirely optional for new members. The latter suggests that re-baptism is becoming viewed as a pastoral issue driven by an individual agenda rather than by an official theology or practice.

And that's not to mention the American Baptist churches mentioned above that re-baptise every newcomer who joins, just to make sure! (But I'm sure they're not alone. There must be some Pentecostals who do the same thing.)
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Many will insist that they're equally important. Yet there are those above who disapprove of 're-dedication ceremonies' that involve full immersion but avoid baptismal liturgy. But why complain about such ceremonies if they don't actually involve the all-important liturgy and therefore cannot be baptisms?

Because - no pun intended - they muddy the water.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
RdrEmCoE, I don't think what you're described is quite within how most of the CofE would regard as the range of orthodox understandings on baptism.

Baptism is a sacrament, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. It's the sacramental act that marks becoming a Christian. It's hardly even a Reformation understanding - I'd put it as a much more recent one than that - to think one can completely separate the spiritual meaning of baptism from the act. That seems to me to be the baptism equivalent that corresponds to an even more extreme memorialist understanding of the Eucharist than the most Zwinglian of Protestants.

This is much clearer where one is talking of an adult convert who has come to faith, is under instruction, but has not yet been baptised. They are in rather a similar position vis à vis God as a couple who are engaged but not yet married are vis à vis each other. And just as marriage is a real act that gives effect to commitments the couple are committing themselves to, and which changes their status humanly at that moment, as part of the ceremony, so baptism is a real act to which a person commits themself, which somebody performs to them and which changes their status spiritually.

Yes, being saved happens by the grace of God, but as to whether it happens when they believe or when they have both believed and been baptised is only an issue that matters if a person has the misfortune to die when they have believed but are still under instruction. God is merciful, and I believe in that event he would be merciful. I'd be less confident if a person were to say 'well I've believed; so that's all right then. I don't need to get baptised. It's just something external. It doesn't really matter.' That seems to be presuming on God's mercy. And I'd have thought it would be spiritually negligent, conceited and dangerous for a person in authority to tell other people that was OK not to be baptised. Likewise, when the gospel of Matthew clearly tells us what form of words to use, for a person responsible in the church for conducting baptisms, deliberately for some foible of their own, to choose to use a different form of words. It would be comparable to saying 'well I don't like water. It's too material. So let's leave that bit out'.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Worse, a minister using it could even be endangering the eternal status of the unwitting victim on whom they were imposing it.


You really think God is like that? Really?

Don't be daft. This is the creator of the Universe, the omnipotent Lord of All, apparently, and you really think he's going to say "your vicar's theology wasn't up to snuff. Welcome to eternal torment"?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
(I'd got as far as to say that it seems to me that since there are such conflicts over theology that there's clearly no convincing answer from Scripture, Tradition or Reason, since everyone using all three disagrees, it's just possible that God doesn't care very much about theology. This seems entirely consistent with a Jesus who taught very little in the way of systematic theology but had a lot of negative stuff to say about people who did.

Put it another way, lighten up. Is God really out there trying to trip us up?)
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Many will insist that they're equally important. Yet there are those above who disapprove of 're-dedication ceremonies' that involve full immersion but avoid baptismal liturgy. But why complain about such ceremonies if they don't actually involve the all-important liturgy and therefore cannot be baptisms?

Because - no pun intended - they muddy the water.
So it is the water, then....

I think the problem with Christianity is that it lacks spiritually engaging rituals for highlighting the process transformation.

Confirmation doesn't do it. I don't want to list my ignorant, outdated and probably inaccurate ideas of what the confirmation process must be like in various churches, but I don't get the impression that it's always experienced as a powerful and spiritual thing. It's not necessarily sufficient for someone looking for a strong, moving and deeply inspirational Christian ritual. And what if someone has already undergone this not very exciting process, like the guy in the OP?

The CofE could ban these quasi-baptisms and discourage emotionalism, but then it might lose those more emotional people to other denominations. Alternatively, I know of one Anglican who was rebaptised by the Baptists, but continued to attend a CofE church. So no confusing CofE ceremonies to 'muddy the water' on its own territory, but individuals would be free to have their special ritual elsewhere, in a spirit of ecumenicalism.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I think the problem with Christianity is that it lacks spiritually engaging rituals for highlighting the process transformation.

So do most religions. The ones that are big on these tend to be fairly exclusivist cults.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Our current rector manoeuvres skillfully around many of the issues raised above. She baptiszs in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- required under our canons, which reflect an ecumenical international agreement. But on a weekly basis, she blesses at the end of the service in the name of the Triune God who creates, redeems and sustains.

John
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Baptism is a sacrament, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. It's the sacramental act that marks becoming a Christian.
No it does not. It is the ACTUAL ACT of GOD within the baptismal candidate that marks actual baptism. That is the inward and invisible grace. The outward and visible sign is merely a concession by God to our insensitivity and dullness of understanding of the truly spiritual. Sacraments perform no magic act, they are merely aids to understanding the invisible works of God. Though the two, Spiritual Bestowal of Inward Grace and Visible, Sensual, Tactile, substantial, sacramental seal and sign, may happen almost simultaneously for some, they may be separated by a quite definite period of time for others.

You speak as if God is obliged to bestow inward invisible grace upon a baptismal candidate just because all the ceremonials have been correctly adhered to. That sounds more like magic to me.

quote:
This is much clearer where one is talking of an adult convert who has come to faith, is under instruction, but has not yet been baptised. They are in rather a similar position vis à vis God as a couple who are engaged but not yet married are vis à vis each other. And just as marriage is a real act that gives effect to commitments the couple are committing themselves to, and which changes their status humanly at that moment, as part of the ceremony, so baptism is a real act to which a person commits themselves, which somebody performs to them and which changes their status spiritually.
More magic eh? Do you seriously think that God has to wait until a minister pronounces a couple man and wife before God counts them as 'one flesh'. Nonsense. If they have already consumated the marriage, then they are already married in God's estimation. That is why it is inadvisable to couple oneself with a prostitute.

Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh." 1 Cor. 6:16

quote:
Yes, being saved happens by the grace of God, but as to whether it happens when they believe or when they have both believed and been baptised is only an issue that matters if a person has the misfortune to die when they have believed but are still under instruction.
If by being 'saved' you mean 'their sins are no longer held against them', then being 'saved' is not only by the grace of God but it also happened nearly 2000 years ago when:

"in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them". "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." I believe the OUR and the WE are referring to the entire human race.

Only might become the righteousness of God because that then comes under the heading of Sanctification, and that can only follow Justification, (a judicial decision made by God regarding the sinner, that their sins are forgiven), and Obedience to Christ, (enabled by The Holy Spirit). That is what in effect should be demonstrated at adult baptism. A willingness to Obey Christ and accept his free gift of salvation through his act of atonement on the cross.

quote:
God is merciful, and I believe in that event he would be merciful.
(The church decided early on that any candidate for baptism who died, [particularly if martyred], before being baptised would be 'saved'). Many catechumens often waited many months for baptism, even nearly a year if they had just missed Easter.

quote:
I'd be less confident if a person were to say 'well I've believed; so that's all right then. I don't need to get baptised. It's just something external. It doesn't really matter.' That seems to be presuming on God's mercy.
It is a mistake to think that it is 'our belief' that entitles us to baptism. It doesn't. Belief is only the means by which we become aware of God's act of atoning sacrifice on our behalf. Without the sacrifice, belief is of no avail. It is by God's Grace that we come to baptism, not though anything that we might supply, even 'faith'.


quote:
And I'd have thought it would be spiritually negligent, conceited and dangerous for a person in authority to tell other people that was OK not to be baptised.
I agree. But not dangerous to the person wanting baptism. The mere fact that they want baptism may be evidence that God has already been at work in them. They may just need to be asked WHY they want it.

quote:
Likewise, when the gospel of Matthew clearly tells us what form of words to use, for a person responsible in the church for conducting baptisms, deliberately for some foible of their own, to choose to use a different form of words. It would be comparable to saying 'well I don't like water. It's too material. So let's leave that bit out'.
As a 'liturgical formula' it has always struck me as being strange though. What is the NAME of The Father? WE know the NAME of The SON, Jesus, or more accurately Joshua since Jesus is the Greek translation of Joshua, the name he was given at birth, (there being no 'sh' sound in NT Greek as there was in Hebrew and Aramaic, so his name appears in the Greek language of the Gospels as Jesus.). And what is the NAME of the Holy Spirit we may ask? So even using the time honoured 'formula' we are still not baptising in the Father's NAME or in The Holy Spirit's NAME, are we.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Baptism is a sacrament, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. It's the sacramental act that marks becoming a Christian.
No it does not. It is the ACTUAL ACT of GOD within the baptismal candidate that marks actual baptism. That is the inward and invisible grace. The outward and visible sign is merely a concession by God to our insensitivity and dullness of understanding of the truly spiritual. Sacraments perform no magic act, they are merely aids to understanding the invisible works of God. Though the two, Spiritual Bestowal of Inward Grace and Visible, Sensual, Tactile, substantial, sacramental seal and sign, may happen almost simultaneously for some, they may be separated by a quite definite period of time for others.

You speak as if God is obliged to bestow inward invisible grace upon a baptismal candidate just because all the ceremonials have been correctly adhered to. That sounds more like magic to me.

And you speak as if you misunderstand what many Christians mean by “sacrament” (or “mystery”). It's fine if you don't agree with the understandings of various Christian traditions, but it doesn’t change the fact that the opinions you assert are not shared by all Christians. And I'll repeat what mr cheesy said earlier: it'd be helpful to tone down the stridency and discuss rather than lecture.

quote:
As a 'liturgical formula' it has always struck me as being strange though. What is the NAME of The Father? WE know the NAME of The SON, Jesus, or more accurately Joshua since Jesus is the Greek translation of Joshua, the name he was given at birth, (there being no 'sh' sound in NT Greek as there was in Hebrew and Aramaic, so his name appears in the Greek language of the Gospels as Jesus.). And what is the NAME of the Holy Spirit we may ask? So even using the time honoured 'formula' we are still not baptising in the Father's NAME or in The Holy Spirit's NAME, are we.
Well, if you don't like the formula, you might want to take it up with Yeshua. (There was no J sound in Hebrew or Aramaic either, so Joshua is also Anglicized), since he's the one who commanded us to use it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
As a 'liturgical formula' it has always struck me as being strange though. What is the NAME of The Father? WE know the NAME of The SON, Jesus, or more accurately Joshua since Jesus is the Greek translation of Joshua, the name he was given at birth, (there being no 'sh' sound in NT Greek as there was in Hebrew and Aramaic, so his name appears in the Greek language of the Gospels as Jesus.). And what is the NAME of the Holy Spirit we may ask? So even using the time honoured 'formula' we are still not baptising in the Father's NAME or in The Holy Spirit's NAME, are we.

That's not how "in the name of" works. You are equivocating on the word "name." One can do something in the name of the Crown, or in the name of democracy, or in the name of generosity. Those things don't need a name. That's not what "in the name of" means.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Well, if you don't like the formula, you might want to take it up with Yeshua. (There was no J sound in Hebrew or Aramaic either, so Joshua is also Anglicised), since he's the one who commanded us to use it.
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.

And if we are going to actually use the NAME of Jesus then it should be 'God Saves', because that is what Yeshua actually means. So why is it so sacrosanct to substitute the merely titular words, 'The Son', for the actual meaning of the name 'God Saves'. What's with the superstitious adherence to words and formulas hoping to ostensibly achieve the desired effect or believing that by so doing the 'effect' will be thus guaranteed?

When baptised using the actual name of 'The Saviour' the efficacy and author of the grace of baptism becomes self evident, i.e. God and only God, 'saves'. Further more Jesus is not, by himself, The Saviour. It is the Triune God that is involved in baptism, and that is the reason for Jesus issuing the adjunct, "In the name of the Father, AND Son AND the Holy Spirit.

quote:
"There is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is no one besides me." Isa. 45:21b.


 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by RdrEmCofE
quote:
I have no objection to sticking with good old CofE praxis and using Father, Son and Holy Ghost, though ghost is confusing to the modern theologically untrained mind, so Holy Spirit is probably a better option.

Is is probably not the actual words used that are important though. It is what the baptised person understand them to mean, in terms of just who this baptism is being conferred and bestowed by;

The person dunking them or Almighty God in all three, Persons.

And its to be profoundly hoped that any such confusion isn't added to by the celebrant choosing In Christ alone as a closing hymn for the ceremony...
Christ alone? As in one of the Reformation calls and one of the 4 distinctives of evangelicalism?

If not Christ alone then who would you like to share his throne? Mohammed? Confucius?
As far as I am concerned, In Christ Alone is not a 'Jesus Only' Pentecostal style song; it merely reflects that it's in Christ alone that we find salvation:

After all,
"God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ..." 2 Corinthians 5 v 29

and

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." Acts 4 v 12
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I rather suspect this comment was meant to be a joke, Mudfrog ...
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
That's not how "in the name of" works. You are equivocating on the word "name." One can do something in the name of the Crown, or in the name of democracy, or in the name of generosity. Those things don't need a name. That's not what "in the name of" means.
Hmm. The taste of sucked uncooked eggs, yeuch.

Your Freudian slip however reveals the fact that you still think in terms of 'making it work' by using the 'correct' words, the 'correct' way, to perform the efficacious salvific al magic, which God has already declared in scripture, done and dusted for us, at the cross.

Nothing wrong with your using the formula, I agree, but perhaps with dangerously superstitious sacramentalist thinking associated with its use.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by RdrEmCofE And its to be profoundly hoped that any such confusion isn't added to by the celebrant choosing In Christ alone as a closing hymn for the ceremony...

Christ alone? As in one of the Reformation calls and one of the 4 distinctives of evangelicalism?

No simply citing a Worship Song which RdrEmCofE seems to object to.

Jengie
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Hmm. The taste of sucked uncooked eggs, yeuch.

Your Freudian slip however reveals the fact that you still think in terms of 'making it work' by using the 'correct' words, the 'correct' way, to perform the efficacious salvific al magic, which God has already declared in scripture, done and dusted for us, at the cross.

Nothing wrong with your using the formula, I agree, but perhaps with dangerously superstitious sacramentalist thinking associated with its use.

And here we see your true agenda.

I think "magic" is an apt description for actions of the deity. And, moreover, I think you've completely misunderstood the post you are replying to.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
Is there a difference, in any sense, between a child who has had a dedication ceremony as a baby and a child who has been baptised as a baby?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I think "magic" is an apt description for actions of the deity. And, moreover, I think you've completely misunderstood the post you are replying to.

I agree that RdrEmCofE misunderstood the post they were responding to. I don't think 'magic' is an apt description though - you don't make God act by cranking the handle and reciting the correct incantation.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Is there a difference, in any sense, between a child who has had a dedication ceremony as a baby and a child who has been baptised as a baby?

To take you absolutely literally - the latter baby can be baptised later in various churches (including Anglican) whereas the former cannot. Also in some (Anglican and other) churches, the latter baby would need to be baptised before going forward for confirmation whereas the former would not.

But perhaps that's not what you are asking?
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
All right

The invoking of the Trinity is not a simple act and has to be read within the context of huge political ramifications.

Firstly, it is a requirement of Roman Catholic Church for recognition of Baptism

Secondly, it is also the requirement of many Protestant Churches following the Unitarian debacle of the 18th Century.

In other words, it is a 'flag' that marks the claim of holding of allegiance to orthodox Christianity. Just as changing the colours of the Union Jack leads to queries over where the allegiance lies so does changing words of the Baptismal formula.

Jengie
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Is there a difference, in any sense, between a child who has had a dedication ceremony as a baby and a child who has been baptised as a baby?

To take you absolutely literally - the latter baby can be baptised later in various churches (including Anglican) whereas the former cannot. Also in some (Anglican and other) churches, the latter baby would need to be baptised before going forward for confirmation whereas the former would not.

But perhaps that's not what you are asking?

Sorry I mixed up the former and latter baby in the above. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Is there a difference, in any sense, between a child who has had a dedication ceremony as a baby and a child who has been baptised as a baby?

Yes, In the dedication ceremony, no promises are made for the child, it is an occasion where the parents give thanks for the child and dedicate him/her to God, promising to teach the child the truths of the faith and bring them up to know about Christ.

The ceremony assumes nothing for the child, conveys no grace upon him/her and is not a sacrament or an ordinance.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
No simply citing a Worship Song which RdrEmCofE seems to object to. Jengie jon
Seems being the operative word. I assure you that I not only have sung it often in full harmony, contributing my experienced tenor voice, but I also mostly agree with its theology.

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.

I have never liked the possible implications of verse 4 though, but some fervent evangelicals seem to see no option other than worship and placate, (as they believe Jesus did), what they feel is a vengeful and wrathful God who would quite willingly drive his only son to a humiliating and painful death to arrange his acquittal of a violently guilty human race, set on murdering him because he offended their moral and religious sensibilities.

There are other far more convincing explanations of the atonement which do not call God The Father's parenting style quite so much into question.

My overview of scripture leads me to surmise that the crucifixion was not to satisfy the wrath of God, but quite the opposite. It is the ultimate demonstration of the Triune God's agonised forgiveness of his ignorant persecutors and libellous slanderers, the human race.

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".

To knowingly reject such a gracious and agonizing amnesty is irrefutable evidence of reprobacy.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Seems being the operative word. I assure you that I not only have sung it often in full harmony, contributing my experienced tenor voice, but I also mostly agree with its theology.

How strange. You say this and then the following:

quote:
I have never liked the possible implications of verse 4 though, but some fervent evangelicals seem to see no option other than worship and placate, (as they believe Jesus did), what they feel is a vengeful and wrathful God who would quite willingly drive his only son to a humiliating and painful death to arrange his acquittal of a violently guilty human race, set on murdering him because he offended their moral and religious sensibilities.

How about employing your experienced tenor voice* in singing a song that contains more than 75% of theology that you agree with?

Also can you not see the issue when this song is sung in the context of a baptism? Which was the reason that someone introduced it into the discussion.

* nobody cares, by the way, about the quality of your voice.

[ 04. January 2018, 10:11: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
I think "magic" is an apt description for actions of the deity. And, moreover, I think you've completely misunderstood the post you are replying to.
I don't think there was any misunderstanding on my part of your statement:

quote:
That's not how "in the name of" works.
Your language indicates that you think somehow the correct recitation of the formula will achieve the desired effect. That's superstitious arm twisting of God, to ostensibly obtain something He has already freely given. i.e. "not holding our sins against us".
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
No simply citing a Worship Song which RdrEmCofE seems to object to. Jengie jon
Seems being the operative word. I assure you that I not only have sung it often in full harmony, contributing my experienced tenor voice, but I also mostly agree with its theology.

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.

I have never liked the possible implications of verse 4 though, but some fervent evangelicals seem to see no option other than worship and placate, (as they believe Jesus did), what they feel is a vengeful and wrathful God who would quite willingly drive his only son to a humiliating and painful death to arrange his acquittal of a violently guilty human race, set on murdering him because he offended their moral and religious sensibilities.

There are other far more convincing explanations of the atonement which do not call God The Father's parenting style quite so much into question.

My overview of scripture leads me to surmise that the crucifixion was not to satisfy the wrath of God, but quite the opposite. It is the ultimate demonstration of the Triune God's agonised forgiveness of his ignorant persecutors and libellous slanderers, the human race.

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".

To knowingly reject such a gracious and agonizing amnesty is irrefutable evidence of reprobacy.

To possibly flog a dead horse and to allude to the discussion on Trinitarian identity, I might suggest that the argument against the wrath of God and it's satisfaction by the Son of God, would only stand up if the Son were adopted as such and were not eternally begotten.

If a 'vengeful' (where is that at all in Scripture?) God were to pluck a bloke from the crowd, choose him to become his firstborn Son and then smite him for the sins of his peers, then I would have the greatest sympathy with the anti-wrath, anti-satisfaction camp.

However, that is, as you know, simply not the case. As in baptismal formulae we must never divide the Trinity and, whilst the Father did not die on the cross, he did indeed - as Moltmann suggests - suffer the loss of his Son.
The wrath of God was visited upon himself, not on another outside his being and experience.

The Son, in his death, suffered his own wrath, being the Word who was with God and was God.
He satisfied himself by the giving of himself.

As we sang at Christmas,
He came down to earth from Heaven, who is God and Lord of all.
and
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, hail the incarnate deity.

It was God himself on the cross as much as Jesus of Nazareth.

Let's not go down the ridiculous route that tries to claim that the cross was 'cosmic child abuse.'
God himself was judge and judged.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I don't think there was any misunderstanding on my part of your statement:

quote:
That's not how "in the name of" works.
Your language indicates that you think somehow the correct recitation of the formula will achieve the desired effect. That's superstitious arm twisting of God, to ostensibly obtain something He has already freely given. i.e. "not holding our sins against us".
First it wasn't my statement. You were replying to Mousethief.

Second, your repeated assertion is wrong. Mousethief wasn't making a statement about reciting of a formula but was pointing out that "in the name of" simply means that you are doing something under the authority of something. As per his examples "in the name of the Crown" and "in the name of democracy" and "in the name of generosity".

In actual fact his point was even more oblique than this. You'd gone off on some tangent about why it was important to baptise in the name of the Father or the Holy Spirit even when we don't use their names - and Mousethief was correctly pointing out that you'd misunderstood what "in the name of" means, and that we clearly use the phrase "in the name of" without referring to the actual name of an individual and in cases where there is no actual named individual being referred to.

[ 04. January 2018, 10:22: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
You speak as if God is obliged to bestow inward invisible grace upon a baptismal candidate just because all the ceremonials have been correctly adhered to. That sounds more like magic to me.

I once visited a church on a Sunday, and during that service four babies were baptised. The minister announced that these four had now just been born again. He certainly seemed to think that the act of baptism effected new birth.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
In the name of refers to the character, the being, the essence and the authority of the person (or office) referred to.

By using Father, Son and Holy Spirit we reflect and testify to the character of God as Triune.

I still maintain that Jesus was making a Trinitarian statement about the nature of God and the name that one calls upon when making religious statements or observances.

Jews will refer to God as HaShem - literally 'the Name'
They will recite the Shema - Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One...

I believe that Jesus changed 'the Name' of God in the washing ceremony - symbolising repentance and holiness - from the Shema, The Lord is One) to the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
You speak as if God is obliged to bestow inward invisible grace upon a baptismal candidate just because all the ceremonials have been correctly adhered to. That sounds more like magic to me.

I once visited a church on a Sunday, and during that service four babies were baptised. The minister announced that these four had now just been born again. He certainly seemed to think that the act of baptism effected new birth.
As a young SA officer I had to write a report about sacraments and I interviewed the Anglican Dean of a Northern Irish Cathedral.

I was surprised to hear him say that the water of baptism actually regenerated the child but that in conformation that child became what s/he already was.

(BTW He also told me he believed the Mass was a blasphemy - which surprised me even more and would have made a dynamite headline had I gone to the press with it!)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Not so sure it would have made massive headlines, Mudfrog. Or at least it wouldn't back in the day.

Church of Ireland clergy tended to take a very 'low' view of the Eucharist to distinguish themselves from the RCs.

Some of the language they used could be quite intemperate.

I was at a conference this last summer where a leading Dominican scholar publicly denounced the current Pope as a 'heretic'. It turned out he'd also sent out press-releases to coincide with the conference in which he aired his grave concerns about the Papal stance on certain issues.

We were all taken aback.

In the event, the press release only seemed to appear in very specialised in-house RC 'trade press' ... it caused very few ripples anywhere else.

Still, it has to go into my, 'Did he really just say what I thought he said?' file ...
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Jut remind who exactly is saying that the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus?
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
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!)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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'.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
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."
quote:
"Those who object to infant baptism do so out of ignorance of Scripture and a faulty understanding of what baptism really is."
Since neither of these supposed quotes came from me. They are both misquotes of what I originally stated and so neither is truly representative.

In your first misquote the tacit implication is that infant baptisers and adult baptisers do not share an understanding of what baptism means. This is in fact far from true, because paedobaptisers also baptise adults and expect a confession of faith from them. How else are adults expected to join the church?

If the premise of the legitimacy of baptism is based solely on ability to 'make a choice', then adult baptisers have to face the fact that their premise inevitably excludes not only infants but many adults, through no fault of 'faithlessness' or 'lack of qualification'.

No mealy mouthed modified form of words can soften the blow. The facts must be faced.

Your second misquote similarly distorts what I actually wrote.

In reply to : "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".

I actually wrote: "This kind of reasoning is based upon ignorance of scripture".

Which it is, and I gave my reasons for stating so.

To the statement : "You are setting forth one understanding of infant baptism. Some churches that practice infant baptism have a different understanding."

I replied : "I agree, yes but I doubt if any of the alternative justifications put forward for it are based on any verifiable scriptural basis".

Without discussing at length all the various justifications that might be offered or appealed to by churches that practice infant baptism, (mostly not actually derived from scripture probably), I don't see how it is possible to say whether or not they may be founded legitimately on scripture. Until I know what those reasons might be I am at liberty to be skeptical about their claim to a scriptural basis.

Perhaps you should read Marcel's book.

https://www.the-highway.com/InfantBaptism_Marcel.html
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
How does one delete a duplicated post?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by RdrEmCofE
quote:
Since neither of these supposed quotes came from me. They are both misquotes of what I originally stated and so neither is truly representative.
Well, if you (and/or the original quoter) headed up your quotes with the name of the person you are quoting then perhaps confusion could be avoided?

Just a suggestion...
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
How does one delete a duplicated post?

I don't think you can, after a few minutes - only hosts can do that.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by RdrEmCofE
quote:
Since neither of these supposed quotes came from me. They are both misquotes of what I originally stated and so neither is truly representative.
Well, if you (and/or the original quoter) headed up your quotes with the name of the person you are quoting then perhaps confusion could be avoided?

Just a suggestion....

That was my fault. I’m the one who formatted things that way. Neither statement was a quote, nor did I intend to suggest otherwise. I meant them both as examples of how the discussion could go. I thought that was clear from how I worded things. But...

I also thought it would help readability and show these as two hypothetical options if they were indented, and the only way I know to do that is in a quote box. Because they weren’t quotes, I didn’t use the normal quote bolding. But I totally forgot that the quote box would actually say “quote,” and I failed to pick up on that in preview.

So, my bad on creating an inaccurate suggestion and impression, and I apologize to RdrEmCofE and to anyone trying to follow along for confusing things.

I’ll come back later with a more substantive reply, but I did want to clear this up more quickly. Sorry.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
RdrEmCofE, my apologies again for muddying the water and being unclear in what I was saying.

I also apologize if I have misunderstood what you’ve been saying. I certainly have not meant to mischaracterize your position. My impression of what you’ve said was based on statements like this:
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.
I read this as saying that the understanding of infant baptism—the doctrinal basis for baptizing infants—you have put forth is the correct one, and that any other standing is incorrect and unscriptural. Were you saying something else?

I'll readily admit that I may have read some of your other statements in the light of how I read what is quoted above. If I was mistaken in doing so, I apologize. But that reading seems to be confirmed when you say:
quote:
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.
Likewise, it seems to be confirmed a few posts up, when you say:
quote:
To the statement : "You are setting forth one understanding of infant baptism. Some churches that practice infant baptism have a different understanding."

I replied : "I agree, yes but I doubt if any of the alternative justifications put forward for it are based on any verifiable scriptural basis".

Without discussing at length all the various justifications that might be offered or appealed to by churches that practice infant baptism, (mostly not actually derived from scripture probably), I don't see how it is possible to say whether or not they may be founded legitimately on scripture. Until I know what those reasons might be I am at liberty to be skeptical about their claim to a scriptural basis.

At the very least, it seems odd at best to be skeptical that any understanding of baptism other than yours (and, I guess, Marcel's) has a Scriptural basis. If you do not know what the arguments are, how can you possibly prejudge their probable illegitimacy?

quote:
Perhaps you should read Marcel's book.
I have, I think, a pretty good grasp of the understanding you're putting forth. Based on what you've said, that understanding of why the church baptizes infants sounds quite consistent with the classical Reformed understanding—not surprising, since Marcel was a French Reformed pastor—which is where I’ve lived all of my 5+ decades. It is very familiar territory, and it’s pretty much an understanding I share. So I really don’t need to be schooled on it, thanks all the same.

But I’ve also endeavored to at least be familiar with the understandings of other paedobaptist churches—Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Wesleyan and Orthodox. And I can see that while there are definite commonalities, there are also differences in understanding, both with regard to the role of baptism in salvation and in the role of faith in the baptism of infants. (You might want to read some Martin Luther.)

As a Christian in the Reformed Tradition, I do think that the Reformed understanding of infant baptism best reflects the Scriptural basis for the practice, but I would never present the Reformed understanding as the only proper Christian understanding. And I would be very hesitant to flatly describe an objection to infant baptism as predicated on a false premise unless I was pretty comfortable that it would be a false premise under all understandings of why the church baptizes infants. What is a false premise with regard to the Reformed understanding might not be such a false premise with regard to, say, the Lutheran understanding.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
RdrEmCofE, my apologies again for muddying the water and being unclear in what I was saying. I also apologize if I have misunderstood what you’ve been saying.
A sincere apology should always be graciously accepted even if no apology was required. It was a simple mistake, obviously no offence intended. Thank you for offering one anyway. Gladly accepted.

quote:
I read this as saying that the understanding of infant baptism—the doctrinal basis for baptizing infants—you have put forth is the correct one. . . .
A correct one, not the correct one, and correct only in the sense that it is doctrinally in accord with the full thrust of OT and NT scripture.

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 [who] has not made a decision to follow Jesus and be baptized, rests on a false premise, a false understanding of what baptism is.
The false premise is this: That scripture states that "Any view of baptism that sees as legitimate the baptism of a person who has not made a decision to follow Jesus and be baptized, rests on a false premise, a false understanding of what baptism is.

The false premise is that scripture unequivocally states it. It does not.

Certainly in the immediate post Pentecost church the majority of baptism's would have been of cognitive, decision making adults, but given the Jewish understanding of The Covenant and in view of the fact that the New Covenant is better than the Old, it is unlikely that believing parents would neglect to bring their infant children under the New Covenant by baptism, as they had done previously by circumcision. The two sacraments, circumcision and baptism thereafter were treated synonymously, with baptism replacing circumcision as the sign and seal of The New Covenant.

The false premise therefore arises out of a presumption that only adults can be baptised because only adults can 'decide'. This is not supported by scripture, it is merely a circular argument put forward by those who think scripture supports it, (as an argument).

It is based only on the assumption that a verbal confession of faith is necessarily and exclusively a pre-condition of every form of scripturally endorsed baptism, (of which there is then assumed to be only one), e.g. adult baptism of those able to comprehend and articulate a statement of faith in Jesus Christ. (Circular reasoning)

Infant baptism, if we are considering only the Biblical doctrine underlying the practice, has a different doctrinal basis than does adult baptism. Therefore to apply to both, pre-conditions which only apply to adults, is to misunderstand the basis upon which infants are baptised and that misunderstanding is based upon a false premise. i.e. that infant baptism should supposedly require the infant to be capable of 'making a decision'.

According to scripture, it does not.

Infant baptism has entirely different pre-conditions, based upon different scriptural considerations.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
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.

Ok, I just did some poking around online. It's variously attributed to many different people, or marked as an old saying.

So I looked up "St. Augustine heard voice". I'd forgotten about the similar story where he heard a child's voice repeatedly telling him to "take up and read" the Bible.

Looks like either I conflated the quote and the story; or someone else did, and I read their idea.

Sorry.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:


If the premise of the legitimacy of baptism is based solely on ability to 'make a choice', then adult baptisers have to face the fact that their premise inevitably excludes not only infants but many adults


That's a good point.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

Certainly in the immediate post Pentecost church the majority of baptism's would have been of cognitive, decision making adults, but given the Jewish understanding of The Covenant and in view of the fact that the New Covenant is better than the Old, it is unlikely that believing parents would neglect to bring their infant children under the New Covenant by baptism, as they had done previously by circumcision.

Actually, given the then current Jewish understanding of The Covenant, it's not surprising that the evidence of how the immediate post Pentecostal church in scripture shows that it is unlikely that believing heads of households would neglect to bring their entire households under the New Covenant by baptism, as they had done previously by circumcision.

[ 31. January 2018, 13:35: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
it is unlikely that believing heads of households would neglect to bring their entire households under the New Covenant by baptism, as they had done previously by circumcision.
Indeed, as scripture itself tacitly testifies. Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18,8, and some others. (Though we should be at pains to point out that these passages are by no means the basis of the Biblical doctrine under which the baptism of infants is scriptural and legitimate.)

From Abraham onwards, for a period of twenty centuries, children were expressly recieved into the church from the time of their birth if they were born of Israelite parents. or as minors if they belonged to families of which the father had been converted to Judaism. Through 20 centuries not only tradition and ritual, but religious and theological thought fashioned by the promises and prescriptions of the covenant of grace, which is the foundation doctrine of the Old Testament, confirmed in all points in the New, owed their organic character to this covenant. Has the force and vigour of this conception according to which children ought to receive the sacrament of the covenant been truly represented? In reality, the silence of the New Testament regarding the baptism of children militates in favour of rather than against this practice. To overthrow completely notions so vital, impressed for more than two thousand years on the soul of the people, to withdraw from children the sacrament of admission into the covenant, the Apostolic Church ought to have received from the Lord an explicit prohibition, so revolutionary in itself that a record of it would have been preserved in the New Testament. Not only, however does the eternal covenant remain intact in the New Testament, but in Jesus Christ it reaches its supreme fulfilment. Had our Lord wished the reception of children into this ever valid covenant to be discontinued He would have said so in order that no one might be in any doubt.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
I have reminded myself that the thread title is Re-Baptism?

I was baptised in infancy by the Rev. Wellesy-Orr in 1945 by effusion, at St Paul's Kingston on Thames.
I was re-baptised, (if that is as others want to describe it, I don't), in the sea by a friend who was the third generation son of three successive Baptist Ministers. This happened while I was serving as a team member, youth leader and musician on a Scripture Union Beach Mission.

So clearly I have no objections to the notion that re-baptism is harmless.

Whether it is necessary depends entirely upon how the baptismal candidate views the meaning and purpose of what they will undergo.

Submitting to multiple baptisms is however as illogical as submitting to multiple circumcisions. The two sacraments are theologically synonymous. Multiple circumcisions are for obvious reasons impracticable, while multiple baptisms, though practicable remain illogical.

In both cases once should be enough to convince one that it has fully occurred, if being convinced it has actually happened is really that important to you.

Adherants of adult only baptism presumably accept the illogicality of further multiple 'goes at making it work properly this time' etc. on the grounds that baptism is a 'Once for all time' commitment. They would raise objection to Joe Bloggs, baptised last year in the big bath tub of The Church of the Holy Whatever, to great celebration, when Joe comes along wanting to 'go through it all once more', because he wasn't quite sure he was really sincere last time, and he's scared God might be cross, (having had a run of bad luck for some recent months).

[To be sure, I'm postulating as inept an adult 'decision making' baptismal candidate as one could imagine, not suggesting the possibility that many actually exist.]

I would be inclined to say to Joe Bloggs, "OK. But I hope you have REALLY thought it all through properly this time because if you come again asking me to dunk you again NEXT year I will think you are just messing me around and I shall tell you not to be such an insufferable idiot".

Do we really think it matters a jot to God whether anyone is baptised more than once? I don't think so.

So what should we think REALLY matters about baptism and why shouldn't people baptised as infants be allowed to ignorantly 'do it all again properly' in order to convince THEMSELVES that they actually know they believe in God, this time?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

Adherants of adult only baptism presumably accept the illogicality of further multiple 'goes at making it work properly this time' etc. on the grounds that baptism is a 'Once for all time' commitment.

I thought I remembered a statement upthread that it was routine practice for some Southern Baptist churches to baptize all new members, even those who had been previously immersed as adults in some other place.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
I thought I remembered a statement upthread that it was routine practice for some Southern Baptist churches to baptize all new members, even those who had been previously immersed as adults in some other place.
But Southern Baptists, (everything you need to know about them is encapsulated in the name), must be a special case. They probably wouldn't recognize the illogicality of it if it stared them in the face, jumped on them and bit them in the neck. [Killing me]

They certainly don't seem to recognize any other denomination as legitimately qualified to do it 'properly', but themselves. With that kind of mindset, what could you expect?
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
quote:

So what should we think REALLY matters about baptism and why shouldn't people baptised as infants be allowed to ignorantly 'do it all again properly' in order to convince THEMSELVES that they actually know they believe in God, this time?

It matters in that ritual reflects what we believe. If we believe that baptism is a sacrament, that it is God who is the deciding agent in conferring grace, but we behave as though the efficacy of baptism hinges on someone’s decision to “accept Christ” — then we’re being inauthentic to our own understanding of baptism. We’re muddling our theology, to the detriment of people trying to understand what we believe, teach and confess, and why we do the things we do.

As noted in other posts, there are plenty of ways for catholic churches to help people “ get” their baptisms or rededicate themselves to the Christian faith without resorting to re- baptizing them. There are also ways for churches to help families affirm their family baptisms. The church I used to attend would give each family a handmade banner with the baptized member’s baptism date; the baptismal candle, to light each year on that anniversary; and a book that the family could read together about “ The Day You Were Baptized.”
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
It matters in that ritual reflects what we believe. If we believe that baptism is a sacrament, that it is God who is the deciding agent in conferring grace, but we behave as though the efficacy of baptism hinges on someone’s decision to “accept Christ” — then we’re being inauthentic to our own understanding of baptism.
I say Amen to that, of course, but which is more important,that we appear to others as 'authentic' to our understanding, or that we do, within reason, everything we can to establish someone more firmly in The Faith.

I have re-affirmed my baptism vows countless times but I do not think this has enhanced my prospect of salvation one single whit. My prospect of salvation was sealed at my first baptism or it was not sealed at all but that is because I have faith in it. What about those who don't because they have been beguiled by the prejudices of adult only baptizers.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
it is unlikely that believing heads of households would neglect to bring their entire households under the New Covenant by baptism, as they had done previously by circumcision.
Indeed, as scripture itself tacitly testifies. Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18,8, and some others. (Though we should be at pains to point out that these passages are by no means the basis of the Biblical doctrine under which the baptism of infants is scriptural and legitimate.)

Infant baptism is just a particular case of the general principle - the 1st century church believed - as did the Jewish culture from which they came from - in covenantal headship.

You get corruptions of this idea later, where everyone in a tribe is baptised because the chief converted, and so on.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
You get corruptions of this idea later, where everyone in a tribe is baptised because the chief converted, and so on.
The whole concept of baptism became subverted in the centuries following the Early Church period.

Both the tendency toward baptising infants to 'save them from damnation' and the postponement of baptism until the onset of death for fear of committing sin after being baptised, both of which became common practice in the church after the 3rd century, are perversions of the scriptural understanding and reason for baptism.

Just as the Reformation recovered a better understanding of many other aspects of the faith of the early church, so with baptism. Very few, if any of the Reformers however decided to take issue with the practice of baptising infants of believers. That should tell us something about either the extent of their comprehension of scripture or the extent of their zeal for reform. Can we believe they just overlooked and tolerated the practice and were simply unconcerned about it? Surely not.

Baptists of course seem to think that it was their denomination alone that led the gallant charge into Reformation enlightenment. Obviously then infant baptism was for them, sadly in need of reform, being the 'heresy' they ignorantly deemed it to be.

[ 31. January 2018, 19:14: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Be careful. The magisterial reformation maintained on the whole infant baptism. The radical reformation on the whole did not. The patterns in the English speaking world are all mixed up, so that English Non-Conformity is a hodge-podge of both radical and magisterial Reformations. Luther, Calvin and co are all magisterial Reformers. While you can see adult baptism among the Baptists, you can see radical views on the individual among Quakers.

Jengie

[ 31. January 2018, 19:23: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
RdrEmCofE, thank you for your graciousness and the clarification provided in response to my earlier post. I do appreciate it.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

Adherants of adult only baptism presumably accept the illogicality of further multiple 'goes at making it work properly this time' etc. on the grounds that baptism is a 'Once for all time' commitment.

I thought I remembered a statement upthread that it was routine practice for some Southern Baptist churches to baptize all new members, even those who had been previously immersed as adults in some other place.
That was me who said that, and it is the case. Not all, or even most, Southern Baptist churches by any stretch, but some. However, such "re-baptisms" are not done in order to make sure it's "done right" this time. That—dare I say it—would be a false premise. It has to do with a very different understanding of both baptism and of church than those who believe baptism is inherently a one-time thing operate with.

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
But Southern Baptists, (everything you need to know about them is encapsulated in the name), must be a special case. They probably wouldn't recognize the illogicality of it if it stared them in the face, jumped on them and bit them in the neck. [Killing me]

As an American Southerner, I'm afraid that I must strongly demur to the suggestion that everything one needs to about them and their ability to recognize illogic is encapsulated the name "Southern Baptist." Is it the "Southern" part or the "Baptist" part that is all-telling?

quote:
They certainly don't seem to recognize any other denomination as legitimately qualified to do it 'properly', but themselves. With that kind of mindset, what could you expect?
This is a significant over-generalization. As one who has lived his life surrounded by Southern Baptists in a culture dominated by Baptists in general and Southern Baptists in particular, I can assure you that there are very few things one can reliably say "they" do or do not recognize as a denomination. Most Southern Baptists churches do recognize the baptisms of other credobaptist churches, and some will even recognize the baptisms of those baptized as infants under certain circumstances. As I said above, the position of those churches that do re-baptize those already baptized as believers has nothing to do with "doing it properly" and everything to do with their understanding of baptism and of the meaning of "church."

By the way, in case you're not aware, the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Baptist denomination in the world, and the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
RdrEmCofE: What to do with people beguiled by the prejudices of adult-baptism advocates? Well, it may be an uphill battle in cultures like ours where “ feelings-n-stuff” regularly trump both reasoned discussion and common sense ( having just read about anti- vax types feeding their autistic children bleach to “ cure” autism)...but I guess my first resort would be to ask them what it is they wish to be/think is to be achieved by re- baptism; provide them with a robust defense of their original baptism that is less about good theology “ winning” and more about them understanding that they are already beloved, redeemed children of God, set free to live God and care for their neighbors; and them see if there is some other action that would ritually assure them of that. Do I think God cares if someone is re- baptized? Of course not. But it sends the wrong message to the faith community — that baptism is so insignificant that it’s subject to “do- overs” as many times as the baptized feels that s/he is insufficiently “ Christian.”
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
that baptism is so insignificant that it’s subject to “do- overs” as many times as the baptized feels that s/he is insufficiently “ Christian.”
Exxacctly! And there is the problem in a nutshell!

Baptism is only ever as efficacious in terms of 'salvation', (as estimated by the baptised), as the baptised believes it is.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Nick Tamen: Is it the "Southern" part or the "Baptist" part that is all-telling?
As a Brit, marooned on this side of the pond, I admit my knowledge of 'Southern' comes mostly from Tom Lehrer

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tom+lehrer+i+want+to+go+back+to+dixie&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei =By1yWufVHuyA8Qfk04P4DA

And my understanding of Baptist is that they make a big thing out of 'Baptism' it seems to be their raison d'etre and distinguishing feature of their unique brand of theology.

Please forgive my ignorance. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Very few, if any of the Reformers however decided to take issue with the practice of baptising infants of believers. That should tell us something about either the extent of their comprehension of scripture or the extent of their zeal for reform. Can we believe they just overlooked and tolerated the practice and were simply unconcerned about it? Surely not.

It's possible in your zeal to lecture that you missed my point. Anyway, I have no issues with infant baptism.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Very few, if any of the Reformers however decided to take issue with the practice of baptising infants of believers. That should tell us something about either the extent of their comprehension of scripture or the extent of their zeal for reform.

"Very few" of the Reformers (the Anabaptists were a significant exception) were able to break away from the Constantinian legacy of a coercive state church, which included, inter alia, encouragement of anti-Semitic violence (Luther), burning heretics (Calvin) and drowning Anabaptists (Zwingli).

That should "tell us something" about caution in drawing conclusions from their alleged "comprehension of scripture".

A non-sequiturial mentality which argues that christening babies must be right because the magisterial Reformers continued it, is on a par with the cowboy exegesis which maintains that the first Christians must have christened babies because they had inherited a Jewish covenantal mindset - despite the fact that there is not a single NT precedent or command to support the practice.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
It's possible in your zeal to lecture that you missed my point. Anyway, I have no issues with infant baptism.
Sorry about that. I noted your point and agreed with it, then went on a rant which I thought extended the point of agreement. Sorry the extension must have seemed like a rebuttal. It was not intended that way. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Kaplan Corday: A non-sequiturial mentality which argues that christening babies must be right because the magisterial Reformers continued it, is on a par with the cowboy exegesis which maintains that the first Christians must have christened babies because they had inherited a Jewish covenantal mindset - despite the fact that there is not a single NT precedent or command to support the practice.
First: I never argued that 'christening babies must be right because . . . .'

Second: There were many things, as you correctly point out, that the Reformers did not reform or deal with, but infant baptism was certainly neither ignored by them or considered a subject 'ripe for reform'. One would have thought that something as fundamental to the faith as baptism would have been high on their list of 'things to get straight', but it was not.

If anything, 'the fact that there is not a single NT precedent or command to support the practice.' is indicative of the known fact that it was going on from the earliest recorded activities of the church. Yet there is never a single NT reference by a single Apostolic authority condemning its practice. There is no 'cowboy exegesis' involved. Only an almost complete ignorance on behalf of 'exclusively adult baptism adherents', of the terms, provisions and promises from God, of both Old and New Covenants, (in fact there is only one), concerning the infants of believers.

I recommend you read https://www.the-highway.com/InfantBaptism_Marcel.html

and then the whole book: The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism by Pierre Ch. Marcel,
ISBN 0 227 6785 9
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Nick Tamen the position of those churches that do re-baptize those already baptized as believers has nothing to do with "doing it properly" and everything to do with their understanding of baptism and of the meaning of "church."
Or 'mis-understanding' depending on whose scriptural point of view is held up as a yardstick. I am naturally suspicious of any denomination which claims to be able to 'understand better' than all others and has clearly defined for themselves the meaning of 'church'. Whose 'church' is it anyway, and who is it that defines its meaning? Are they claiming to know the mind of Christ? I think they should come clean before they dissect and condemn tenets of theology they seem not to understand.

quote:
By the way, in case you're not aware, the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Baptist denomination in the world, and the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.
Interesting, but size alone is no guarantee of sound doctrine. Wide is the road and many that may be going that way and very 'right' they may feel about their chosen orientation. A 'little flock' is more likely to be in possession of the truth, according to the recorded estimate of one influential person I could mention.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
By the way, in case you're not aware, the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Baptist denomination in the world, and the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.

Interesting, but size alone is no guarantee of sound doctrine.
Of course not. I didn’t say it was. I provided that information for two reasons:

First, I mentioned it as a way of illustrating to any non-American who might not be familiar with them, that when Americans talk about Southern Baptists we're not talking about small, mostly rural "country church" Baptists in the South. We're talking about a large and influential association of Baptist churches all across the U.S., about whom lots of information is readily available.

And second, I thought that providing that information, and giving the proper name of the Southern Baptist Convention, could provide a helpful entry point to anyone who wanted to learn about Southern Baptists rather than make assumptions about them.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Indeed, as scripture itself tacitly testifies. Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18,8, and some others. (Though we should be at pains to point out that these passages are by no means the basis of the Biblical doctrine under which the baptism of infants is scriptural and legitimate.)

From Abraham onwards, for a period of twenty centuries, children were expressly recieved into the church from the time of their birth if they were born of Israelite parents. or as minors if they belonged to families of which the father had been converted to Judaism. Through 20 centuries not only tradition and ritual, but religious and theological thought fashioned by the promises and prescriptions of the covenant of grace, which is the foundation doctrine of the Old Testament, confirmed in all points in the New, owed their organic character to this covenant. Has the force and vigour of this conception according to which children ought to receive the sacrament of the covenant been truly represented? In reality, the silence of the New Testament regarding the baptism of children militates in favour of rather than against this practice. To overthrow completely notions so vital, impressed for more than two thousand years on the soul of the people, to withdraw from children the sacrament of admission into the covenant, the Apostolic Church ought to have received from the Lord an explicit prohibition, so revolutionary in itself that a record of it would have been preserved in the New Testament. Not only, however does the eternal covenant remain intact in the New Testament, but in Jesus Christ it reaches its supreme fulfilment. Had our Lord wished the reception of children into this ever valid covenant to be discontinued He would have said so in order that no one might be in any doubt.

RdrEmCofE, did you write any of this post yourself, or is it all an uncredited quotation from your favorite book?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Errr...children were not "received into the church", because there weren't churches yet.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I am naturally suspicious of any denomination which claims to be able to 'understand better' than all others and has clearly defined for themselves the meaning of 'church'.

Of course, that applies to the CofE too. Rather renowned in some quarters for its arrogance and hubris on such matters.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Of course, that applies to the CofE too. Rather renowned in some quarters for its arrogance and hubris on such matters.
I repeat:

I am naturally suspicious of any denomination which claims to be able to 'understand better' than all others and has clearly defined for themselves the meaning of 'church'.

But I am not responsible for the arrogance and hubris of previous generations of churchmen, and neither are you. They lived in different times and behaved according to the norms of their era. I think any denomination with more than a 100 year history has skeletons in its cupboard, including yours, if you are affiliated to one.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
... I am naturally suspicious of any denomination which claims to be able to 'understand better' than all others and has clearly defined for themselves the meaning of 'church'. ...

As distinct from individuals who make such claims or who speak as though they work from that assumption?
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
As distinct from individuals who make such claims or who speak as though they work from that assumption?
Including individuals who make such claims. I have not. The assumptions others make with regards to one's own theological insight are often just that, assumptions.

I may be content to go under the label 'Christian'. I am not responsible for every assumption that others might infer from that.

Perhaps if I wanted complete confirmation on whether or not I am actually one I should consult a Calvinist or Southern Baptist, they seem to think themselves supremely qualified to advise me on the subject.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Perhaps if I wanted complete confirmation on whether or not I am actually one I should consult a Calvinist or Southern Baptist, they seem to think themselves supremely qualified to advise me on the subject.

Your assumptions are showing. Again.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I may be content to go under the label 'Christian'. I am not responsible for every assumption that others might infer from that.

Perhaps if I wanted complete confirmation on whether or not I am actually one I should consult a Calvinist or Southern Baptist, they seem to think themselves supremely qualified to advise me on the subject.

To which Calvinists do you refer? There are many different churches which have derived from Calvin's teachings.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
To which Calvinists do you refer? There are many different churches which have derived from Calvin's teachings.

And chief among those many different churches is the one in which the author whose book he keeps recommending was a pastor.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
One would have thought that something as fundamental to the faith as baptism would have been high on their list of 'things to get straight', but it was not.

One would have thought that something as fundamental as not murdering fellow-believers might have been high on their list too, but it was not.

quote:
the known fact that it was going on from the earliest recorded activities of the church.
There is no evidence whatsoever, only tendentious partisan inferences, for paedobaptism in the NT era.

It emerged in subsequent centuries - as did, for example, the aforementioned Constantinian (and later, the worse Theodosian) theocracy

quote:
Yet there is never a single NT reference by a single Apostolic authority condemning its practice.
Naturally, because it did not exist.

quote:
terms, provisions and promises from God, of both Old and New Covenants, (in fact there is only one), concerning the infants of believers.
The covenant for Israel was national and ethnic.

No-one got to choose whether they were under it, and if you defied its conditions you could die.

The Christian's covenantal relationship with God is a result of a decision to believe and obey, something of which a baby is incapable.

Countless children born to Christians have shown no evidence of faith in the first place, and countless others have consciously rejected their parents' faith.

The fact that we recognise as Christians only those children of Christians who make a conscious decision to go on in the faith, demonstrates that Christianity is always a matter of choice, not of birth.

Someone born to Christian parents who decides, when capable of thought, to follow the faith, is no different from someone from a non-Christian background who decides to follow the faith.

Both, as Christians, are under the covenant, and each because of a conscious decision to believe and obey.

Babies who die before reaching a stage of accountability (whenever that might be; God knows), no matter what the spiritual standing of their parents, and whether or not they had their children christened, are automatically included under the covenant of grace - unless you want to join Augustine in believing that hell is full of unbaptised babies.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Of course, that applies to the CofE too. Rather renowned in some quarters for its arrogance and hubris on such matters.
I repeat:

I am naturally suspicious of any denomination which claims to be able to 'understand better' than all others and has clearly defined for themselves the meaning of 'church'.

But I am not responsible for the arrogance and hubris of previous generations of churchmen, and neither are you. They lived in different times and behaved according to the norms of their era. I think any denomination with more than a 100 year history has skeletons in its cupboard, including yours, if you are affiliated to one.

I am affiliated to one and yes hubris and arrogance is alive and well in the CofE. I saw it - with many others - this week.

It was very much "this is what we are doing", join in.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
It is generally agreed, I think, that the NT has no certain reference to infants being baptised. Further, very early references in the Fathers are mostly inference. The earliest certain reference to infant baptism is that of Tertullian in his 'Homily on Baptism' (c200). He was against it, which perhaps means that it was a relatively recent and contentious innovation.

Origen (somewhat later and further east) knew about infant baptism and also saw an analogy between baptism and circumcision, but did not connect the two. He saw the analogy in the light of an intelligent response to the Gospel.

I have read that the earliest use of the analogy between baptism and circumcision as an argument for infant baptism was by Cyprian in reporting the result of a synod in Carthage in 253. However, the notion that infants shared in the sin of Adam, and needed to be cleansed took precedence of the baptism/circumcision analogy.

Gregory Nazianzen, a century later, assumed the necessity for repentance and faith for baptism. Therefore, he said that children should not be baptised until they are about three years old, when they can have some understanding.

In short, the actual evidence is that the baptism of infants in the early centuries of the Church was practised by some and not others, and for different reasons.

I would also comment that the covenental, domincal sacrament is surely the eucharist:
quote:
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
I am affiliated to one and yes hubris and arrogance is alive and well in the CofE. I saw it - with many others - this week.
No doubt, but we will all remain uninformed about it unless you choose to be less reticent. At the risk of derailing the thread, can you be more specific, without starting a rabbit run. Perhaps initiate another thread on the matter?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
I am affiliated to one and yes hubris and arrogance is alive and well in the CofE. I saw it - with many others - this week.
No doubt, but we will all remain uninformed about it unless you choose to be less reticent. At the risk of derailing the thread, can you be more specific, without starting a rabbit run. Perhaps initiate another thread on the matter?
No. It will reveal who I am irl and this is not a place to do that openly. I can assure you, though that it is true.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure. Although this week I've seen some very impressive things in an Anglican context and heard some egregious things from a Baptist one, where the irony of a particular situation seemed list on the leadership of that particular congregation, and perhaps on most of the congregation too ...

But then, 'whataboutery' doesn't get any of us anywhere.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
I can assure you, though that it is true.
I have little doubt that it is true to a noticeable degree of any denomination in which human beings participate. Even the Apostles exhibited the traits of human frailty and the early church was full of it.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Both co-exist. The egregious thing I mentioned in connection with the Baptist congregation runs alongside some excellent and praise-worthy aspects.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I am naturally suspicious of any denomination which claims to be able to 'understand better' than all others and has clearly defined for themselves the meaning of 'church'.

But I am not responsible for the arrogance and hubris of previous generations of churchmen, and neither are you. They lived in different times and behaved according to the norms of their era.

The effects of time are significant, I think. Theological distinctiveness seems to become less important over time. At most, it's meaningful in its role as a symbol of a community's shared heritage, rather than as vital understanding of the divine.

The trick for any denomination is in maintaining its numbers and distinctiveness while also accepting that its has nothing 'better' to offer than anywhere else. I think this is quite hard. AFAICS, in the English setting only the CofE can really get away with indulging theological diversity. The CofE simply has more going for it than most other groups.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
I can assure you, though that it is true.
I have little doubt that it is true to a noticeable degree of any denomination in which human beings participate. Even the Apostles exhibited the traits of human frailty and the early church was full of it.
Can you please provide me with hard evidence of paedo baptism either from biblical times or the early church (please note that I am not interested in tradition for the purposes of this answer)
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure. Although this week I've seen some very impressive things in an Anglican context and heard some egregious things from a Baptist one, where the irony of a particular situation seemed list on the leadership of that particular congregation, and perhaps on most of the congregation too ...

But then, 'whataboutery' doesn't get any of us anywhere.

Of course. I agree.

Unfortunately, the response pretty much proved my contention
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Can you please provide me with hard evidence of paedo baptism either from biblical times or the early church (please note that I am not interested in tradition for the purposes of this answer)
Depends how early you mean by early.

If you mean the Apostolic period, there is obviously very little hard evidence for it in NT scripture, but a great deal of it in the OT, given that The Covenant always embraced infants from its inception, it was instituted by God and the promise extended to 'children of Covenant keepers' by God himself from its inception. This would rightly be taken by the human participants in that Covenant as being 'good'.

The New Covenant, is recorded in the New Testament as being 'A better Covenant'. It would hardly have been considered 'better' if it entirely excluded the children of believers from its promises.

It is obviously also a 'better' covenant because its sign and seal of membership is 'baptism' rather than circumcision, since baptism is equally applicable to both male and female infants, therefore it symbolizes a greater degree of equality between male and female under Covenant responsibility and privilege.

The fact that there is little direct reference to the baptism of infants in NT scripture is not a sensible reason for trying to suggest the practice did not take place or even that it was not very widespread after the first generation of believers had been baptised as adults. There would undoubtedly have been an expectation on the part of Jewish Converts to Christianity that their children were just as entitled to the sign and seal of the New and better Covenant, as they were under the Old and inferior Covenant, and undoubtedly would have felt equally obliged to obey the stricture that their infants must be sealed into it, or else 'cut off from God's people as a covenant breaker by edict from Almighty God'. Gen 17:14.

An argument resting on lack of specific mention in NT scripture for the prevention of infant baptism is as illogical, (given other supporting evidence for its practice), as would be the prevention of women receiving Communion.

Try as you may you will not see a single mention of a woman receiving communion anywhere in NT scripture, yet no sensible person, (given other supporting evidence for its general acceptance by the Christian community with obvious tacit Apostolic approval, with not a single Apostolic objection), would try to prevent women coming to the communion rail simply because the New Testament carries not a single specific example of one having done so, to receive the sacrament.

To ban infant baptism on the grounds that you suggest, should also therefore entail a ban on women receiving communion, (in the interests of logical consistency, using your criteria of 'no specific mention of it in NT Scripture').
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thing is, though, Exclamation Mark you can't separate scripture from tradition (small t) because scripture no more stands alone in your tradition than in does in anyone else's ...
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Meanwhile, Kaplan appears to be channelling Steve Langton ...

Shhhh, Kaplan, he might hear you and join us here ...

[Biased] [Razz]

Killing fellow believers, yes, very egregious. A pity someone didn't tell the Munsterites that as well as Theodosius, Constantine and the usual suspects ...

As for hubris, it seems to me that we could explore some more irregular verbs here:

You are hubristic for claiming that your Church has direct Apostolic Succession and that mine doesn't.

I'm not hubristic for claiming that my ranting gathered conventicle is on equal terms with those who claim the above ...

And so it goes on.

You are hubristic for believing yourself to be a true Christian because someone said some magic words and sprinkled water on your head when you were a baby.

I'm not hubristic for claiming to be 'saved' simply because I 'prayed the sinner's prayer' or put my hand up in a meeting ...

And so it goes on. Both ways and all ways round.

[Help] [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Gamaliel, snide personal attacks on other shipmates are not needed. Particularly unnecessary when the person isn't even here.

Gwai
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
[Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
As I said earlier on this thread,
quote:
Originally posted by me
it is difficult to extract from scripture any specific guidance on the baptism or otherwise of the children of parents who are already Christians.

and
quote:
Also originally posted by me
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 alone just does not cover.

People have asserted both ways on this thread, based on theologians who agree with them, their denominational practice, or early tradition. As it happens I accept the value of early tradition. I agree with what Gamaliel has implicitly said about scripture's relationship with it. However, those who advocate credo-baptism-only tend often to be sola scriptura also. For those that are, I'm still holding open the challenge to demonstrate from scripture alone either that position or what the Christians of the New Testament era did about their children - and that's without saying 'as X says it says', or 'they must have done Y because that fits with what we think now'. -.

I still don't think it can be done. It's a question scripture does answer.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, though, Exclamation Mark you can't separate scripture from tradition (small t) because scripture no more stands alone in your tradition than in does in anyone else's ...

I know but I wanted to get at the roots untainted as far as possible by overthinking or overwriting.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[Hot and Hormonal]

Come on Gamaliel jump off the fence for once you know it makes sense
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, though, Exclamation Mark you can't separate scripture from tradition (small t) because scripture no more stands alone in your tradition than in does in anyone else's ...

I know but I wanted to get at the roots untainted as far as possible by overthinking or overwriting.
You can't. It's impossible. It's like that bloke who set up the Churches of Christ in the USA.

He said he wanted to read the Bible as if he were the first person to have done so.

What a daft thing to say.

There, that's coming off the fence ...

There are days when both my wife and I wish we'd had our kids baptised as infants rather than having them 'dedicated' and hoping they'd come to faith later on.

Ok, so there'd be no guarantee that this would have ensured they'd have owned or practised the faith themselves.

Yes, I am ambivalent but I can't see how I can be otherwise having moved in both paedobaptist and credo-baptist circles.

I remain squeamish about indiscriminate infant baptism but not at all opposed to it in the case of children of believing parents.

Perhaps I am a mass of contradictions.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The blushing face was in response to a hostly rebuke, EM. I accept the rebuke.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
Enoch has it right, I think.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
there is obviously very little hard evidence for it in NT scripture

there is little direct reference to the baptism of infants in NT scripture

Correction: There is no mention whatsoever of christening babies in the NT.

You still fail to grasp the difference between the covenantal terms of the OT and NT.

What Christians from both Jewish and and Gentile backgrounds in the NT had to understand, was that the new covenant was not an automatic result of physical birth circumstances, but a conscious decision to recognise and follow Christ as Lord.

quote:
An argument resting on lack of specific mention in NT scripture for the prevention of infant baptism is as illogical, (given other supporting evidence for its practice), as would be the prevention of women receiving Communion.
You are grasping at straws.

This is a desperate and invalid analogy, because the salient factor is not gender, but age and comprehension.

The capacity for a conscious faith commitment which brings a person under the new covenant is absent from a baby, but exactly the same for a man and a woman.

FWIW, I have happily lived and worked and worshipped all my life with Christians who believe and practise paedobaptism, along with many other things which I regard as adiaphora, but if anyone insists on making it an issue, then the facts have to be pointed out.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Killing fellow believers, yes, very egregious. A pity someone didn't tell the Munsterites that as well as Theodosius, Constantine and the usual suspects ...

I am currently re-reading Meic Pearse's The Great Restoration: The Religious Radicals of the 16th and 17th Centuries, and been reminded again of the neanderthal theocrats who for centuries were wont to bellow "WHAT ABOUT MUNSTER?" every time the topic of Anabaptists came up.

Apparently they are not yet quite extinct.

Using Munster as an exhaustive definition of Anabaptism demonstrates all the theological and polemical sophistication of summing up evangelicalism by Westboro Baptist, Roman Catholicism by clerical sexual abuse, or Orthodoxy by anti-Semitism.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've heard Meic speak. Good bloke. Fellow Welshman.

The point I'm making isn't that Munster somehow negates all the crap that went on elsewhere, but simply to point out how simplistic the radical reformers = good, everyone else = shite schtick that seems so popular in some circles.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Plus, if you'd read my post properly you'll have seen that I was accusing all sides of hubris. I wasn't picking out the Anabaptists for particular censure.

I must admit, though, that I do have sympathy with Richard Baxter's charge against the 'Papists' and 'Greeks' that they thought they were top dog because they were bigger than everyone else and again the Anabaptists that they thought they were holier than everyone else ...
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... but if anyone insists on making it an issue, then the facts have to be pointed out.

Kaplan Corday, when you speak so easily of the facts having to be pointed out, I think you are conflating a fact, with something that can't really be classed as a fact.
quote:
Correction: There is no mention whatsoever of christening babies in the NT.
I agree. That is a fact.

However,
quote:

You still fail to grasp the difference between the covenantal terms of the OT and NT.

What Christians from both Jewish and and Gentile backgrounds in the NT had to understand, was that the new covenant was not an automatic result of physical birth circumstances, but a conscious decision to recognise and follow Christ as Lord.

is a mixture of fact and interpretation. The fact bit is that the new covenant was proclaimed not to be the automatic result of physical birth circumstances. It is, however, either your interpretation or the interpretation of those you happen to follow and respect, how Christians of the New Testament generations might have applied that to baptism and/or the initiation of the children of believing parents. To say, 'well they must have thought, or done, x because that is what I think must follow from what they said', is a deduction you are making. It is not transmitting something that is in the New Testament.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Kaplan Corday What Christians from both Jewish and and Gentile backgrounds in the NT had to understand, was that the new covenant was not an automatic result of physical birth circumstances, but a conscious decision to recognise and follow Christ as Lord.
And what you fail to recognise is that exactly the same conditions pertained in the OT. Not every circumcised person was a Jew according to Paul, only those who had faith like Abraham, and tried to keep The Law, the circumcised of heart.

a conscious decision to recognise and follow Christ as Lord, is a bit of a 'cart before horse' statement when it comes to the children of believers. It is even a bit 'cart before horse' in the case of adults, who (being sold in trespasses and the rebellion of sin) are incapable of expressing any kind of 'decision' to obey and follow Christ until they are empowered by The Holy Spirit to do so through the hearing of The Gospel.

But in the case of the children of believers, THEY are already Holy in God's eyes. THEY only have the option to either CONTINUE under the Covenant God has with their parent/s or REJECT it and become reprobate just as did sinful Israelites such as The Sons of Korah.

Conversely the children of unbelievers are not Holy in God's eyes. THEY will need to respond to the Gospel and though under God's Grace until such time as they are able to decide, (if they ever are), they will need to make Covenant with God by positively responding to The Gospel when they hear it preached in The Power of The Holy Spirit.

The children of believers however will hear and respond to the Gospel while already under The Covenant, and therefore only have the option to either REMAIN under it, or LEAVE and face the consequences.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Kaplan Corday What Christians from both Jewish and and Gentile backgrounds in the NT had to understand, was that the new covenant was not an automatic result of physical birth circumstances, but a conscious decision to recognise and follow Christ as Lord.
And what you fail to recognise is that exactly the same conditions pertained in the OT. Not every circumcised person was a Jew according to Paul, only those who had faith like Abraham, and tried to keep The Law, the circumcised of heart.

a conscious decision to recognise and follow Christ as Lord, is a bit of a 'cart before horse' statement when it comes to the children of believers. It is even a bit 'cart before horse' in the case of adults, who (being sold in trespasses and the rebellion of sin) are incapable of expressing any kind of 'decision' to obey and follow Christ until they are empowered by The Holy Spirit to do so through the hearing of The Gospel.

But in the case of the children of believers, THEY are already Holy in God's eyes. THEY only have the option to either CONTINUE under the Covenant God has with their parent/s or REJECT it and become reprobate just as did sinful Israelites such as The Sons of Korah.

Conversely the children of unbelievers are not Holy in God's eyes. THEY will need to respond to the Gospel and though under God's Grace until such time as they are able to decide, (if they ever are), they will need to make Covenant with God by positively responding to The Gospel when they hear it preached in The Power of The Holy Spirit.

The children of believers however will hear and respond to the Gospel while already under The Covenant, and therefore only have the option to either REMAIN under it, or LEAVE and face the consequences.

All children are Holy in God's eyes just as all are created in God's image.

What you are giving me here is a church predicated on privilege not founded on grace and faith.

I don't have an issue with paedobaptism - I'm a godparent and take that seriously. My only issues are:

1. Where it is being used as a kind of magic: rather than as a demonstration of Grace. Baptism doesn't save you whether performed by Priest or Minister or whether enacted on a baby or a confessing believer. If it did, then you enter a theology of salvation by works.

2. Where specious (although well meaning arguments) are employed to demonstrate its antiquity or covenantal connections. Take it as it is - a blessing, a grace. I do the same for baptising adults. In itself it doesn't save but as with anything that involves the grace of God, "something" always happens at baptism.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
A few quick observations ...

I seems to me that just as it is axiomatic that Theodosian and Erastian forms of Christianity will inevitably lead to hegemonic coercion and abuse, there is a mirror-image inherent danger of extremes within more voluntarist or sectarian forms.

Yes, the Inquisition, yes non-Anglicans not allowed into Oxford before the 1850s or the Royal Family barred from marrying Catholics ...

But yes also Munster, yes also Waco, yes idiosyncratic interpretations of scripture and examples of exclusivism ...

All these things must be resisted whatever our 'churchmanship'.

On the 'works' thing, I'm not sure that paedobaptism falls into that category as nobody is saying that the faith of the parents, the faith of the priest or minister or anything of that kind 'saves' the recipient. Heck, lay people can baptise in extreme circumstances in the RCC so it's not as if it HAS to be a priest.

Sure, there are cultural accretions and it lends itself to misunderstanding and abuse - but the same can be true for the evangelical 'sinner's prayer' and other forms of 'making a commitment' to use a particular piece of parlance.'

Credo-baptists and paedobaptists can end up talking past each other and I suspect that's happening to a certain extent here.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It seems to me that whatever form of baptism we espouse, God's action in salvation is acknowledged or evoked.

There are caricatures on both sides.

Another irregular verb:

'The way we do it is based on grace and faith ...'

'The way you do it is based on mumbo-jumbo, privilege and works ...'
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
FWIW and all that said, and at the risk of accusations of fence-sitting, I do think we owe an big debt to the radical reformers and the Anabaptists for contributing to a paradigm shift away from imposed forms of religious observance and a move towards intentionality.

Of course, it wasn't only as a result of their often costly witness but that was a major contributor to the process.

The witness of often eccentric sects such as the Diggers, Quakers and so on played into this process.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
All children are Holy in God's eyes just as all are created in God's image.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 1 Cor. 7:14

Perhaps you can explain to me what 'unclean' means when applied to children of parents who have no Covenant relationship with God, (i.e. unbelieving in Christ's atonement), and what 'holy' means when applied to the child of at least one believing parent, whose faith in the atonement of Christ is evidence to God of their Covenant with Him.

All children are 'loved by God' for sure, as we know from the teaching of Jesus Christ, they are recipients of God's Prevenient grace, as are all human beings because of the atonement. Were they not, they and we would be under immediate condemnation.

quote:
What you are giving me here is a church predicated on privilege not founded on grace and faith.
Nothing of the sort. Everything is of the Grace of God, we merely apprehend that grace by faith and in spite of being Holy to God, covenant children must still close with the covenant THEMSELVES, by act of faith or reject it and become covenant breakers and renegades in later life.

Yes, to be born under God's Covenant with one's parent is a 'privilege' but with privilege also comes 'responsibility' not expected by God of 'unclean' children from birth. This is a matter rarely discussed or understood even by adherents of infant baptism, much to the disadvantage of those infants who they have signed and sealed into God's Covenant. Breaking Covenant with God is far more serious than just being an 'unclean child', and as yet an 'unsaved', sinner under prevenient grace.

quote:
I don't have an issue with paedobaptism - I'm a godparent and take that seriously.
But do you understand the terms of The Covenant that your godchildren are baptised into? Will it be explained to them their need to close with the full implications of having a 'two way' Covenant relationship with God. The gifts of God are irrevocable, but punishment ensues from the misuse of them for purposes other than God intended.

quote:
1. Where it is being used as a kind of magic: rather than as a demonstration of Grace. Baptism doesn't save you whether performed by Priest or Minister or whether enacted on a baby or a confessing believer. If it did, then you enter a theology of salvation by works.
Here we are talking of the ignorant misuse of infant baptism. That is to be condemned, just as the ignorant misuse of credo-baptism which also is anathema.

quote:
2. Where specious (although well meaning arguments) are employed to demonstrate its antiquity or covenantal connections. Take it as it is - a blessing, a grace. I do the same for baptising adults. In itself it doesn't save but as with anything that involves the grace of God, "something" always happens at baptism.
Infant baptism is a sign and seal of the infant's covenant status by virtue of his/her believing parent's faith in Christ's Atonement. Skepticism regarding the probity of infant baptism denies the very special consolation of believing parents, that Our Lord wills that their children are fully welcomed into the communion of His Church. By refusing the sign of the covenant for our children we are not far from believing that they are not in the covenant. Indeed many a Baptist I have known has been greatly concerned that their children 'are not yet saved'.

The reason why Satan does his utmost to deprive our children of the ceremony of baptism is that he may efface from our gaze this attestation that the Lord has ordained for confirming to us the blessings which He desires them to enjoy, and that thus at the same time we may forget, little by little, the promise which He has given us for them. From this there must follow not only ingratitude and contempt for God's mercy towards us, but failure to instruct our children in the fear and discipline of His law and in the knowledge of His Gospel.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:


1. All children are Holy in God's eyes just as all are created in God's image.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 1 Cor. 7:14


2. Perhaps you can explain to me what 'unclean' means when applied to children of parents who have no Covenant relationship with God, (i.e. unbelieving in Christ's atonement), and what 'holy' means when applied to the child of at least one believing parent, whose faith in the atonement of Christ is evidence to God of their Covenant with Him.

3. All children are 'loved by God' for sure, as we know from the teaching of Jesus Christ, they are recipients of God's Prevenient grace, as are all human beings because of the atonement. Were they not, they and we would be under immediate condemnation.

quote:
What you are giving me here is a church predicated on privilege not founded on grace and faith.
Nothing of the sort. Everything is of the Grace of God, we merely apprehend that grace by faith and in spite of being Holy to God, covenant children must still close with the covenant THEMSELVES, by act of faith or reject it and become covenant breakers and renegades in later life.

4. Yes, to be born under God's Covenant with one's parent is a 'privilege' but with privilege also comes 'responsibility' not expected by God of 'unclean' children from birth. This is a matter rarely discussed or understood even by adherents of infant baptism, much to the disadvantage of those infants who they have signed and sealed into God's Covenant. Breaking Covenant with God is far more serious than just being an 'unclean child', and as yet an 'unsaved', sinner under prevenient grace.

5.
quote:
I don't have an issue with paedobaptism - I'm a godparent and take that seriously.
But do you understand the terms of The Covenant that your godchildren are baptised into? Will it be explained to them their need to close with the full implications of having a 'two way' Covenant relationship with God. The gifts of God are irrevocable, but punishment ensues from the misuse of them for purposes other than God intended.

6.
quote:
1. Where it is being used as a kind of magic: rather than as a demonstration of Grace. Baptism doesn't save you whether performed by Priest or Minister or whether enacted on a baby or a confessing believer. If it did, then you enter a theology of salvation by works.
Here we are talking of the ignorant misuse of infant baptism. That is to be condemned, just as the ignorant misuse of credo-baptism which also is anathema.

7.
quote:
2. Where specious (although well meaning arguments) are employed to demonstrate its antiquity or covenantal connections. Take it as it is - a blessing, a grace. I do the same for baptising adults. In itself it doesn't save but as with anything that involves the grace of God, "something" always happens at baptism.
Infant baptism is a sign and seal of the infant's covenant status by virtue of his/her believing parent's faith in Christ's Atonement. Skepticism regarding the probity of infant baptism denies the very special consolation of believing parents, that Our Lord wills that their children are fully welcomed into the communion of His Church. By refusing the sign of the covenant for our children we are not far from believing that they are not in the covenant. Indeed many a Baptist I have known has been greatly concerned that their children 'are not yet saved'.

8. The reason why Satan does his utmost to deprive our children of the ceremony of baptism is that he may efface from our gaze this attestation that the Lord has ordained for confirming to us the blessings which He desires them to enjoy, and that thus at the same time we may forget, little by little, the promise which He has given us for them. From this there must follow not only ingratitude and contempt for God's mercy towards us, but failure to instruct our children in the fear and discipline of His law and in the knowledge of His Gospel.

1. This is written to the church not to everyone. Sanctification here comes through relationship (wife, husband)

2. The children were dedicated to another deity. This means they are now Christ's. It doesn't cover children who have not been so involved

3. Yes by a conscious commitment which therefore makes baptism redundant. if you follow your argument

4. You are grading sin here. The bible only knows of this in context of sinning against the Holy Spirit

5. Yes to both parts.

6. Yes I agree. But I respectfully suggest you look to your own corner where the implications that it is baptism which regenerates is implicit in the rite. There are issues with credo baptism too of course but that's for me and my ilk to sort out. It's not required here as we are open membership.

7. Children are in the covenant until they sin. baptism may be a consolation but its not a requirement.

8. Please don't shift not pile on the blame. It's not all Satan's work. By stating it as you do you are traducing the considered decisions of many godly people and are (personally) condemning them and their children to hell when God does not. One decision on baptism will not necessarily be followed by the rejection you assert on others' behalf.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
1. This is written to the church not to everyone. Sanctification here comes through relationship (wife, husband)
And you are saying that sanctification does not, according to Paul extend, through relationship to the offspring of believing husband and wife? Is that it?

God has always considered children to be in relationship with their parents. Why should He suddenly change His mind on the matter after 2000 years.

quote:
2. The children were dedicated to another deity. This means they are now Christ's. It doesn't cover children who have not been so involved
How can we possibly know that? Does Paul say so? No he does not. If as you say, "They are now Christ's", HOW has that state of affairs come to pass? By what theological reasoning can you reach this conclusion if, (at the same time you are saying), the only means of entering The Church is by confession of faith by an adult?

quote:
3. Yes by a conscious commitment which therefore makes baptism redundant. if you follow your argument
Not so: Baptism is only redundant if it is superstitiously thought to confer salvation on the infant. That is not a legitimate purpose for infant baptism, neither is it a reformed basis for the sacrament only an ignorant apprehension of its probity by those critical of its application.

quote:
4. You are grading sin here. The bible only knows of this in context of sinning against the Holy Spirit
Nonsense! Covenant breakers were punished by God in the OT. God did not punish the Nations for being outside of the Covenant, they had no responsibility to abide by its rules and no special privileges afforded them by virtue of it. It was hoped by God that The Nations would eventually be embraced by The Covenant and be afforded the same privileges and responsibilities as Israel. The New Covenant is the Consummation of that unfolding plan of salvation. Christ is the mediator of The Covenant and The Gospel is the means by which it is now promulgated. Just so today, much will be expected of those to whom much is given. Luke 12:48.

quote:
7. Children are in the covenant until they sin. baptism may be a consolation but its not a requirement.
Nonsense! Children who sin, (and they will often do it), remain in the covenant until such time as God decides they are fully responsible for their behaviour. Their parents are immediately responsible to God for their children's behaviour until such time as God decides otherwise.

Baptism, I agree, is not a requirement, but it is far more than a mere consolation. Baptism, for infants, is a visible demonstration of the child's authentic right to be considered a member of Christ's church. The child has met all the requirements for such membership and is entitled to the sign and seal of the Covenant relationship with God that began when they entered the world as progeny of a believing parent, (in fact probably even before that, when they were knit together in their mother's womb).

It is a great evil for our children to be strangers to the people of God, strangers to the covenant. Believing parents sin gravely against the souls of their own children when they neglect to consecrate them to God by the institution of baptism, even if these children should ultimately choose to be blotted out of the book of life.

quote:
8. Please don't shift not pile on the blame. It's not all Satan's work. By stating it as you do you are traducing the considered decisions of many godly people and are (personally) condemning them and their children to hell when God does not.
I don't believe in Hell. At least not the kind of hell that most people's imaginations conjure up. I am quite content to let people indulge their imaginations to their medieval hearts content. I like the work of Hieronymus Bosch but I think he was far off the mark with his imaginings. They are decidedly nonbiblical. Many godly people have some very ungodly imaginations though, even when they may themselves be completely unaware of it.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
The children of believers however will hear and respond to the Gospel while already under The Covenant, and therefore only have the option to either REMAIN under it, or LEAVE and face the consequences.

As an Arminian, I am amused by the contradiction in which those of Reformed persuasion entangle themselves with their peculiar take on covenant, ie children of believers are automatically saved, but can choose to lose that salvation, in defiance of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

As an Arminian, too, I believe in the NT truths that God's loves all people (children and adults); that Jesus died for all people; that God wants all people to be saved; and that he extends a genuine invitation to them to accept the gospel, and provides prevenient grace to enable them to do so.

In the light of this, anyone who is still trying desperately to cling on to covenant barriers and restrictions on the OT pattern, has simply failed to grasp the significance of the Christ event.

The delusion that children of believers are automatically saved, while the children of unbelievers are not, is not only wrong-headed, but wicked and blasphemous.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 1 Cor. 7:14

Believe me, I have spent a lifetime listening to Christians cite obscure verses (like a magician producing a rabbit from a hat) in support of dodgy doctrines, so I am inured and unfazed.

The hermeneutical principle of the analogy of faith teaches that difficult pericopes are to be interpreted in the light of clearer and more numerous passages, and the NT nowhere teaches that children are automatically saved by being born into a Christian family, so whatever I Cor.7:14 is teaching, it is not teaching that, any more than it is teaching that the non-Christian spouses of Christians are automatically saved.

I admire your ingenuity and tenacity, but while it is quite interesting, you will continually and inevitably shipwreck yourself on the rock of complete and utter absence of paedobaptism in the NT.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

I admire your ingenuity and tenacity, but while it is quite interesting, you will continually and inevitably shipwreck yourself on the rock of complete and utter absence of paedobaptism in the NT.

Paedobaptism is just a special case of household baptisms.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Kaplan Corday

I've spent the whole of my life of faith in a church which practises believers baptism.

And I think you are wrong. Certainly as a matter of history, baptism of infants goes back a very long way. There are references by Irenaeus (Against Heresies - late 2nd century), by Origen (early third century), who mentions infant baptism as "traditional and customary", Tertullian (early 3rd century) who mentions that it was customary to baptise infants with sponsors speaking on their behalf. The evidence is that from at least the 3rd century, infant baptism was a standard practice. We're talking about well before the Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th Century.

However you (or I) may wish to read scripture re this (and you underestimate the room for disagreement), infant baptism as an established church practice has a very long pedigree. It was practised alongside the adult baptism of converts.

Theologically, to dismiss it is to dismiss the grace of God towards infants. It is also to dismiss the practical value of welcoming babies into the family of God, of encouraging parents and godparents to support them in both their practical and spiritual growth.

In my local congo, babies are welcomed into the church, their parents and indeed the whole church make promises of both practical and spiritual support. We just don't use water. But the intention is the same as if we did. We just have a different view of the efficacy of the water.

So our sacramental view is different to those who practise infant baptism. But it is better to be humble and accept that the church has been doing it for a very long time, in support of both tradition and scripture. There really is no place for any sense of superiority about believers' baptism.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Kaplan Corday] The hermeneutical principle of the analogy of faith teaches that difficult pericopes are to be interpreted in the light of clearer and more numerous passages, and the NT nowhere teaches that children are automatically saved by being born into a Christian family, so whatever I Cor.7:14 is teaching, it is not teaching that, any more than it is teaching that the non-Christian spouses of Christians are automatically saved.
So your contention is that this is a 'difficult pericope' to be interpreted by clearer and more numerous passages.

It is only a difficult pericope because you cannot explain it within the context of the theological edifice you have constructed around the single principle of credo-baptism.

In 1 Cor. 7:14. Paul confirms that the children of believers are 'holy'. (Nothing is said about them being automatically 'saved' as you try with your distinctive brand of theology, to impose on the text or infer that I have suggested).

Like the rest, this text ought not to be considered as a direct proof of the baptism of children, but as a confirmation of the covenant. It shows, in fact, that all the advantages of the covenant formerly accorded to the believing Jewish family are now made available to the Christian family.

In order to prove that a Christian husband or wife ought not to leave the unbelieving partner, Paul uses an argument which ought, in the Church, to be unquestioned and accepted by all: " Your children are holy and not unclean" he says. This being so, the believing partner sanctifies the unbelieving partner. By the faith of one only the entire conjugal union is sanctified.

(Here is what the non-Jewish modern credo-baptist mind cannot comprehend about the covenant and thus treats Paul's statement as a difficult pericope). The main point of Paul's argument is that children of a family in which the father or the mother is a believer are reckoned to the believing partner, even if it is the wife.. Here it is faith which dominates everything.

The children of believers are not however 'holy' by nature, but only by the privilege of the covenant. Just as credo-baptist converts do not become 'holy' by nature, but only by imputation. Our 'righteousness' being as it were 'put on as a garment' which rightly belongs to Christ.

You unfortunately seem trapped in your own meaning construct and therefore are unable to interpret 1 Cor.7:14 in any meaningful way within the paired down, poorly formed covenant understanding you have espoused.

Once we create meaning for ourselves, our brains are designed to hold on to that meaning. We are biased toward the meaning our mind has made, and we don’t want to let go of it. Even if we see evidence that contradicts the meaning we created, we often ignore it and keep on believing anyway.

I have explained the 'pericope' (or 'religious text' for those of us who don't often use rare words), but did my explanation make any sense to you? Probably not.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
The delusion that children of believers are automatically saved, while the children of unbelievers are not, is not only wrong-headed, but wicked and blasphemous.
The delusion is your own, read back through what I have said, you will find no mention of 'children of believers being 'automatically saved'. That is entirely your own construct, no more than a straw man or Aunt Sally to knock down and appear to win points. Deliberate obfuscation.

Neither have I said anything about the children of unbelieving parents 'going to hell'. False accusation: Entirely your own words, not mine.

Wicked and blasphemous: Yes, IF I had said it, which I had not.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
An interesting addendum to my post. It appears from church history that the practice of infant baptism predated the establishment of the canon of scripture by at least a century. So I find it pretty amusing that the tradition of infant baptism should be criticised using the traditional texts of scripture, which came later.

I don't mind anyone arguing that the early church message emphasised believe and baptised. It also stressed the imminence of the last days. The practice of infant baptism may well have had something to do with the reality that the last days might be further in the future, so there might be several generations of Christians to come. In that context the early references to household baptism may well have been found helpful in answering questions about the welcoming of babies into the Christian communities.

It does seem to make sense to look at this ancient practice in the context of church history, rather than just applying a particular view of the canonical scripture, and the sacraments.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
I don't mind anyone arguing that the early church message emphasised believe and baptised. It also stressed the imminence of the last days. The practice of infant baptism may well have had something to do with the reality that the last days might be further in the future, so there might be several generations of Christians to come. In that context the early references to household baptism may well have been found helpful in answering questions about the welcoming of babies into the Christian communities.

The earliest Baptisees would, of course, have been adults because there was no tradition of taking little Stacy to the church to have her 'done' c33AD. The people being Baptised would have been people who heard the proclamation of the Gospel and believed and who would, by definition, have been adults. We do know of cases where people with their whole household were Baptised which suggests to me that infant Baptism may have been practiced by the Early Church, but without a TARDIS we have no way of confirming this.

The strongest reason - for me - for the practice of paedobaptism is that the Church is a community and communities are comprised of adults who can decide stuff for themselves and children and other people who can't. What is the justification for leaving the latter out of the community. I used to take communion to a lady with a mentally handicapped daughter. There was no question of the daughter being mentally competent enough to accept her Baptism - ever. What is the justification for leaving her out of the Church? So I Baptise anyone who asks me nicely. If people are daft enough to put themselves and their children into the hands of the Living God, who am I to stand in their way.

I have no problem with credobaptist rebaptisms, in the Baptism or Anabaptist tradition. They are not just doing it to annoy people, they are doing it because they think it is important. They regard it as a sacrament tied up with one's recognition of Jesus as Lord. In the C of E we have Confirmation for that sort of thing. But, pragmatically, as humans we need rituals to welcome children into the community and to acknowledge people becoming fully fledged adult members. I would, as per the OP, have a problem with an Anglican church rebaptising people but that is another matter. Parenthetically, my one encounter with an HTB plant in an urban priority area was entirely positive. This isn't to say that other people haven't had other experiences.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

In that context the early references to household baptism may well have been found helpful in answering questions about the welcoming of babies into the Christian communities.

We do know of cases where people with their whole household were Baptised which suggests to me that infant Baptism may have been practiced by the Early Church, but without a TARDIS we have no way of confirming this.

But again, infant baptism in this scheme is just a special case of something that would happen within the context of a household baptism.

Because the question to ask for those placing credo baptism in opposition to paedo baptism is; on the basis of whose profession of belief was the rest of the jailers household being baptised?
[Similarly, on the basis of whose belief was the rest of Abraham's household circumcised in Gen 17]

I'll return to the rebaptism question later as ISTR reading some material that suggested that there were two distinct ways in which it surfaced post the magisterial Reformation - and would want to review that first before responding.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
Callan [Overused]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

The strongest reason - for me - for the practice of paedobaptism is that the Church is a community and communities are comprised of adults who can decide stuff for themselves and children and other people who can't.

Agree entirely; it is what I was trying to say, but not as succinctly. We've argued about this too much in the past; some mutual respect and understanding is in order.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[ Callan ] The earliest Baptisees would, of course, have been adults because there was no tradition of taking little Stacy to the church to have her 'done' c33AD. The people being Baptised would have been people who heard the proclamation of the Gospel and believed and who would, by definition, have been adults.
Yes but little Satacy, (or her equivalent) quite possibly was hanging around mum and dad when they were listening to Peter's Pentecost sermon. Her parents would have heard Peter's proclamation:

quote:
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." Acts 2:38.
Had she been even only just old enough to ask mum and dad, "Does every one of you mean me as well."

Peter would have clarified the situation when he added.

"For the promise is to you and your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him". Acts 2:39.

So the principle is there right from the day of Pentecost when about three thousand souls were baptized, and there is no absolute guarantee, (given the Jewish understanding of Covenant), that all those souls were adults.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Certainly as a matter of history, baptism of infants goes back a very long way.

The evidence is that from at least the 3rd century, infant baptism was a standard practice.

infant baptism as an established church practice has a very long pedigree. It was practised alongside the adult baptism of converts.

I am quite aware of all this, and have never denied the antiquity of paedobaptism.

All I have pointed out is that it is nowhere described or taught in the NT, and that we are on very dubious grounds when we attempt to treat post-NT developments (I cited as an example the state persecution of heretics) as normative and prescriptive.

quote:
Theologically, to dismiss it is to dismiss the grace of God towards infants.
I am sorry, but that really is a very silly and untrue thing to say.

God extends his grace to babies every bit as much as to adults, and their salvation is guaranteed (whether they are the children of Christians or not) should they die before the age of accountability.

What is more, a belief in credo-baptism is in no way incompatible with a commitment to nurturing any children who happen to be in a church environment, whether they are the offspring of church members, hangers-on, visitors, unknowns (in the case of temporary respite care, fostering, or adoption) or whoever.

quote:
There really is no place for any sense of superiority about believers' baptism.
I reiterate what I said upthread, that I have always been committed to peaceful co-existence between paedobaptists and credobaptists, and only defend credobaptism if it is attacked by paedobaptists with a "sense of superiority".
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Yes but little Stacy, (or her equivalent) quite possibly was hanging around mum and dad when they were listening to Peter's Pentecost sermon. Her parents would have heard Peter's proclamation:

Had she been even only just old enough to ask mum and dad, "Does every one of you mean me as well."

There would not be the slightest problem with baptising a little girl who (unlike an uncomprehending baby) can communicate, can understand at some level the concept of a commitment to Jesus, and has the volitional capacity to choose to be baptised.


quote:
"For the promise is to you and your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him". Acts 2:39.
To suppose, in the context of the verbal interraction between Peter and his hearers (v.37), that Peter had in mind unconscious babies, is to draw to snapping point a very long bow indeed.

Give us a break.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Theologically, to dismiss it is to dismiss the grace of God towards infants.

I am sorry, but that really is a very silly and untrue thing to say.

God extends his grace to babies every bit as much as to adults, and their salvation is guaranteed (whether they are the children of Christians or not) should they die before the age of accountability.

How do you know that? From scripture, I mean.

I think it can be inferred from the NT picture is God as loving father. But I can't remember any specific scriptural confirmation. Perhaps you know one?

This is a vital point. As I described above, in my local church the welcoming of babies shares just about everything featured in infant baptism, apart from the water. Our understanding of baptism as a sacrament is different. But it is only an understanding.

There are millions of Christians, by far the majority, whose understanding is different. I can accept the possibility that the grace of God is at work in infant baptism, despite my different understanding of the sacrament.

If you can accept that possibility, then I withdraw my observation.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
God extends his grace to babies every bit as much as to adults, and their salvation is guaranteed (whether they are the children of Christians or not) should they die before the age of accountability.
Sounds nice, but can we have chapter and verse on exactly what scripture you base that assertion?

We infant baptizers can justify the assertion that the infants of believers are guaranteed salvation by virtue of God's covenant with their parent/s and can cite scripture to support the assertion.

Can you?

You presumably believe that entry to the church and therefore the covenant, can only be obtained by a visible confession of faith in the Lordship of Christ, and baptism. How is it, (according to scripture, as you seem to understand it), that your children who until the age of cognizance, are incapable of confessing faith in Jesus Christ are guaranteed salvation (whether they are the children of Christians or not)?

Chapter and verse please.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
To suppose, in the context of the verbal interraction between Peter and his hearers (v.37), that Peter had in mind unconscious babies, is to draw to snapping point a very long bow indeed.
Only to someone who has little understanding of how the Pentecostal Jewish hearer would have understood Peter's speech referring to the promise for their children.

As far as they were concerned, this would mean children from only 8 days old, the age at which boys were circumcised, (as Jesus was himself), as a sign and seal of their God instituted covenant promises and responsibilities.

If you tried to tell one of those 3000 that their baby could not be baptized and share in the same covenant promises that the parent was about to receive by baptism, (i.e. the forgiveness of their sin and the gift of The Holy Spirit), they would probably have refused to go through with it. You certainly could not sell them the idea that they were about to enter A BETTER COVENANT than the Old One that included their boy children from 8 days old onwards.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Heb. 8:6.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

Chapter and verse please.

Well, of course I made the same point, from within the Baptist tradition.

But frankly, we need more mutual generosity. Like this from Callan

quote:
I have no problem with credobaptist rebaptisms, in the Baptism or Anabaptist tradition. They are not just doing it to annoy people, they are doing it because they think it is important. They regard it as a sacrament tied up with one's recognition of Jesus as Lord.
I want to be friends despite our differences of understanding. It doesn't really bother me if you find my understanding to be inferior, or heretical, or just plain wrong. I'm prepared to accept that we may be wrong, or have an incomplete understanding. Why is it such a big deal to say "we know in part"?

Like Callan says, we don't do what we do to annoy people; we find a value in keeping alive the concept of "believe and be baptised".
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Like Callan says, we don't do what we do to annoy people; we find a value in keeping alive the concept of "believe and be baptised".
And a very good and Biblical concept it is too, (for adults and cognizant children).

Credo-baptists so often seem to assume that infant baptizers are guaranteeing salvation, (as if that were possible).

No one is guaranteed salvation, even confessing adults.

OSAS is a damnable heresy which runs a coach and horses through the whole idea of sanctification and perseverance of the saints.

ALL baptised souls need to remain in God's Grace by living in power of The Holy Spirit and remaining faithful to Christ and his teaching. This applies as much to babies as it does to adults.

No one is guaranteed salvation until they hear a special someone whisper in their ear, in the hour of their death, "Well done thou good and faithful servant".

[ 06. February 2018, 23:09: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I presume that OSAS means 'Once Saved, Always Saved'?

On this question I urge a reverent agnosticism! It's up to God who joins the sheep and who the goats, an issue in discussion elsewhere.

My own understanding from the gospels is that complacency is really not a good idea when it comes to Christian discipleship. I believe Christians should get stuck into the work of the kingdom, get stuck into following Christ. And leave the management of eternity to the eternal God. Self obsessed focus on whether or not we are saved bothers me. A privatised gospel emphasising self-interest in salvation seems a long way removed from Jesus' well known paradox that seeking to keep our lives is a recipe for losing them. Service of others based on love of God and others is our categorical imperative.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This is a vital point. As I described above, in my local church the welcoming of babies shares just about everything featured in infant baptism, apart from the water. Our understanding of baptism as a sacrament is different. But it is only an understanding.

There are millions of Christians, by far the majority, whose understanding is different. I can accept the possibility that the grace of God is at work in infant baptism, despite my different understanding of the sacrament.

and
quote:
Well, of course I made the same point, from within the Baptist tradition.

Barnabas, I don't want to send the thread down a tangent—though I guess it isn’t too off-topic—but may I ask a quick question? Do British Baptists refer to baptism as a "sacrament"? Or communion, for that matter? I only ask because, with little exception, Baptists on this side of the pond affirmatively reject the use of the term "sacrament."
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Traditionally British Baptists talk of "ordinances" rather than "sacraments". However I suspect that the usage is changing and "sacrament" is more often used than it once was, partly because "ordinance" sounds so old-fashioned! Just my opinion though.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Theologically, to dismiss it is to dismiss the grace of God towards infants.

I am sorry, but that really is a very silly and untrue thing to say.

God extends his grace to babies every bit as much as to adults, and their salvation is guaranteed (whether they are the children of Christians or not) should they die before the age of accountability.

How do you know that? From scripture, I mean.
No, I can't produce proof texts.

My conviction is based on what I understand of the character of God from the Bible.

As I said upthread, if you or anyone else derives a different understanding from Scripture, and chooses to hold Augustine's belief that hell is full of unbaptised babies, then I wish you joy of it.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Heb. 8:6.

It is a better covenant because it is based on grace, not adherence to the Law; is offered to all humankind, Jew and Gentile alike; and is offered on the basis of understanding, communication and relationship, not mere accident of birth.

You seem determined to misunderstand the Christian era of covenant, and do everything possible to push it back into the old, discredited and now obsolete model from the OT.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
you will find no mention of 'children of believers being 'automatically saved'.

Your theory of covenant says that babies are born into it by virtue of having Christian parents, and that they can later on choose to leave it.

If they are not saved, ie Christians, while supposedly under the covenant, then there is no point in their being under it.

They are either saved, and since they have no say in it, it is perfectly reasonable to describe them as automatically saved, or they are not, in which case there is no point to covenant membership.

Choose the alternative on which you prefer to skewer yourself.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There would not be the slightest problem with baptising a little girl who (unlike an uncomprehending baby) can communicate, can understand at some level the concept of a commitment to Jesus, and has the volitional capacity to choose to be baptised.


This is a bit of a sweeping statement - many credobaptists would "have a problem" with baptising a young child who did not have the capacity to understand the full implications of what they were doing.

I don't have figures, but in my experience Baptists do not tend to baptise anyone under 12 and it is much more likely to be a practice for church kids between 14-18. In my experience even this latter age band is too young and can cause confusion and disillusionment in subsequent years (often early 20s).

---

Incidentally, the most painful baptism experience I ever witnessed was of a child of about 6 in an Anglican church. The child clearly didn't understand what was happening to them but knew that they didn't want or like the attention.

Hence they screamed "nooooo, I don't want it" throughout the whole thing.

I'm not sure what the Anglican priest is supposed to do in these circumstances, but the congregation stood agog and IIRC everyone just tried to get through it as quickly as possible.

In my muddled and contradictory understanding of baptism, it seems to me that any child between about a toddler and say 14-16 shouldn't be baptised other than in extreme circumstances.

Children are not capable of understanding the line between their faith and their parents (and/or other adults) and are not really capable of understanding to any sensible level what it is that they are doing.

To me the only two options are to baptise as an infant or as an independent adult. Anything in the middle, in my view, is bad.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:


They are either saved, and since they have no say in it, it is perfectly reasonable to describe them as automatically saved, or they are not, in which case there is no point to covenant membership.

Choose the alternative on which you prefer to skewer yourself.

If I may, I'd gently suggest that you and your interlocutor are talking past each other because your theology is fundamentally different and you are both judging the other by a standard they don't accept.

Baptists, Mennonites and others are basically "opt in" faiths. Anglicans, Lutherans, RCs etc are basically opt-out faiths.

In the former, you can never really be considered a full member of the church until you consciously sign up and say/do some specified things. This is often tied to an understanding that "getting saved" is something that happens in a particular, defined, instant to every believer.

In the latter, the understanding isn't about "being saved" in an instant and one is considered to be "in" until such time as you make some kind of positive decision to leave.

So it doesn't really make any sense to talk about the pedobaptisers practicing the idea of "automatic salvation" of children. It is more that they understand the faith to be a river which at any given moment in life one is in until one chooses to get out.

A child cannot get out, they're carried along by many arms of people within the faith until such time as they make some other decision. There is nothing "automatic" about the salvation, it is simply that pedobaptisers understand grace to mean that one is given the benefit of the doubt until such time as that clearly isn't appropriate whereas - in a crude sense - the credobaptists assume nothing until someone of sound mind signs up on the bit of paper.

It's a totally different way of understanding belief and church membership.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
It is a better covenant because it is based on grace, not adherence to the Law; is offered to all humankind, Jew and Gentile alike; and is offered on the basis of understanding, communication and relationship, not mere accident of birth.
But infants of believers are excluded from it and have to remain outside it, (according to Baptist theologising), until they are old enough to 'choose' to enter it, (as if we choose Christ, rather than The Father choosing us for Christ, as clearly stated by Christ). Jn. 15:16, 6:65, 17:9, 17:11, 17:24, And even Paul recognised that 'faith' is granted to man by God. Rom. 12:3.

The questions I pose therefore are:

(1) Do you believe your infants to be in the covenant?

(2) If you say they are, (and I think you have, since you seem to think they are 'guaranteed salvation'), by what theological reasoning, according to your understanding of scripture, are they IN it?

(3) If you say they are not, how according to scripture, are you so confident that they are 'guaranteed salvation'? You must be aware that there is no 'guaranteed salvation' for anyone outside The New Covenant, for it is only within it that its promises are fulfilled.

If you say they have it at birth, when do they lose the 'guarantee'? If at some point they lose the 'guarantee' what happens between their losing the 'guarantee' and them hearing and positively responding to the Gospel, confirmed by baptism? Are they not in a precarious position salvation wise?

Can you not see the bind your theology has gotten you into regarding the confidence you have in your own children's salvation status between birth and their first understanding and responding to the Gospel invitation, which may be many years after birth?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Perhaps it's time to correct another out of date conception?

Unbaptised babies.

It appears that we all trust in the mercy of God towards the helpless. The era of fear that Hell is populated with the bones of unbaptised babies is gone.

Like Kaplan Corday, I never believed that. It seemed grotesquely removed from any understanding that the Lord our God is good.

Perhaps it is better to use the term ordinances. I think in practice the nonconformist approach to both baptism and communion is best described as sacramental because we follow the commands of Jesus on both matters. Communion may be a memorial, but we still use bread and wine. The water may not effect any change, that has not already occurred in the heart, but we use it anyway.

The water, the bread, the wine, are seen as indispensable to our actions, but mainly as indispenable symbols. We use them because Jesus said do this in remembrance of me, baptise the disciples who have joined you.

So we don't really know why the bread and wine and water are essential. The symbol argument is a theory. Because we are resistant to the notion of 'magical acts' requiring a specially set aside 'priestly class' to make them work.

It really is time to confine these arguments to history. The imperative is to build welcoming communities and to lay down our arms about the different ways we do that. When you dig down deep enough, we have remarkably similar motives for what we do differently.

[ 07. February 2018, 12:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Barnabus:] Unbaptised babies.

It appears that we all trust in the mercy of God towards the helpless. The era of fear that Hell is populated with the bones of unbaptised babies is gone.

Like Kaplan Corday, I never believed that.

Neither do I.

quote:
It seemed grotesquely removed from any understanding that the Lord our God is good.
[Overused]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Hence they screamed "nooooo, I don't want it" throughout the whole thing.

I'm not sure what the Anglican priest is supposed to do in these circumstances, but the congregation stood agog and IIRC everyone just tried to get through it as quickly as possible.

The right thing to do in a case of that sort would be for the priest to stop the proceedings and explain to the congregation that baptism is entirely a voluntary affair and the only reason babies are baptised is because they are entitled by virtue of having at least one believing parent who has secured the child's qualification to be included in thier parent's covenant with God.

Followed by a request to be invited to the child's non-baptism bun-fight for a piece of cake and a booze-up, to celebrate the child's ability to express its opinion so forcibly when intimidated by a bunch of control-freak adults who should have got the whole thing out of the way when the child was young enough not to raise objection.

I imagine any Jewish parent in OT times would have been charged with physical assault or child abuse had they irresponsibly left circumcision of their baby boy until the age of the little girl you mentioned.

At 8 days old I guess the male child would have no memory of the discomfort involved. I don't see any regrets from Jesus Christ at the fact that he had 'had it done to him, in accord with the law'. Luke 2:22-24, Luke 2:39. He was clearly too young to remember it all.

The New Covenant being in all respects 'A better covenant' has no requirement for circumcision or letting of blood, the only blood required was that of Christ himself.

Baptism is entirely voluntary and it is not IMPOSED upon infants or adults. Infants are only baptised on the basis that they have an entitlement to it as a demonstration of their standing within the Christian community, under the self same covenant as their believing parent/s.

I admit, given the paucity of knowledge of Covenant theology in the average Anglican pew, the priest would have an uphill task of explaining it all, especially to nominal attendees who have little or no interest in the subject, but are merely there out of respect for the wishes of Granny, Grandad, mum, dad or whoever, not out of any interest in Covenant Theology or even in God or their own salvation.

Such is the nature of the problem which has been largely caused, not by infant baptism, nor by credo-baptism, but by the church's failure to educate itself and its parishioners in the Doctrine of Covenantal Salvation in the New Testament era of Grace.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Mr Cheesy] If I may, I'd gently suggest that you and your interlocutor are talking past each other because your theology is fundamentally different and you are both judging the other by a standard they don't accept.

Baptists, Mennonites and others are basically "opt in" faiths. Anglicans, Lutherans, RCs etc are basically opt-out faiths. . . . . . . . . eveything else you said . . .

Except that 'basically' is an important proviso because the opt-out churches also believe strongly in credo-baptism for those to whom it is appropriate.

[Overused]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:

quote:
Incidentally, the most painful baptism experience I ever witnessed was of a child of about 6 in an Anglican church. The child clearly didn't understand what was happening to them but knew that they didn't want or like the attention.

Hence they screamed "nooooo, I don't want it" throughout the whole thing.

I'm not sure what the Anglican priest is supposed to do in these circumstances, but the congregation stood agog and IIRC everyone just tried to get through it as quickly as possible.

In my muddled and contradictory understanding of baptism, it seems to me that any child between about a toddler and say 14-16 shouldn't be baptised other than in extreme circumstances.

Children are not capable of understanding the line between their faith and their parents (and/or other adults) and are not really capable of understanding to any sensible level what it is that they are doing.

To me the only two options are to baptise as an infant or as an independent adult. Anything in the middle, in my view, is bad.

All I can say is that this isn't my experience. I am reminded of the story of the American gentleman who was asked if he believed in infant baptism: "Believe in it? Heck, I've seen it done!"
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
In the Pentecostal churches I know of it's common for children to be baptised around 8 years of age. But they will have been raised in a religious environment, and know what to expect. They're also required to be able to give their consent.

[ 07. February 2018, 14:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the Pentecostal churches I know of it's common for children to be baptised around 8 years of age. But they will have been raised in a religious environment, and know what to expect. They're also required to be able to give their consent.

To an extent yes, but in reality the age gets pushed ever downwards, and it's often dubious exactly what the children are consenting to.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
To an extent yes, but in reality the age gets pushed ever downwards, and it's often dubious exactly what the children are consenting to.
If only these parents knew about the covenant provisions God has made for their infants and children, they would not be so concerned for their eternal destiny that they try to rush them to a commitment they lack the intellectual maturity to comprehend fully.

Children of believers are entitled to be allowed to grow into an understanding of the privileges afforded them by God under the terms of the covenant He has undertaken with their parent/s. Right up until they feel ready to take full responsibility upon themselves, for undertaking the discipline of living through faith, the Godly life, God enables with the help of His Holy Spirit, his children to live.

[ 07. February 2018, 20:01: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
chris stiles

Well, as this thread shows, baptism (and re-baptism) is subjected to a whole raft of interpretations, official and otherwise, so I wouldn't doubt that the Pentecostal approach is shifting in that respect.

Sometimes I feel that Pentecostals want to have their cake and eat it. They like the protective element offered by infant baptism, but they also like the drama of baptism as a transformative event in a conscious believer's life.

Perhaps this is because Pentecostalism, while being a Protestant movement, also represents a sort of 're-catholicised', mystical form of Christianity.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
[QUOTE] Do you believe your infants to be in the covenant?

If you are asking me about my own children, no, of course we did not get them christened as babies.

Why on earth would we?

As babies and small children, before any age of accountability, they were covered by Christ's saving work had they died - in common with all babaies and small children, of Christians and non-Christians.

When grown up and responsible, their having been christened while completely unconscious of the event, would not have made an iota of difference to their need to trust and obey Christ for themselves - at which point they would enter the new covenant described in the NT.

The only reason for christening them would have been a command or precedent for doing so in the NT, and such command and/or precedent is totally non-existent.

In its absence, the only remaining reason for christening babies is a confusion between the OT and NT covenants, of the sort displayed by the Judaizers in the Galatian church.

In the light of the ongoing failure by some Christians 2000 years later to comprehend this difference, and their attempts to eisegetically wrest the scriptures (KJV Rules OK!) to justify their confusion, one can only sigh, "Plus ca change...."

[ 08. February 2018, 00:12: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
If you are asking me about my own children, no, of course we did not get them christened as babies.

Why on earth would we?

As babies and small children, before any age of accountability, they were covered by Christ's saving work had they died - in common with all babies and small children, of Christians and non-Christians.

First let me make perfectly clear, I am not suggesting that your infant children are not covered under the terms of God's covenant with you as believing parents. God keeps his promises even when we don't. Your children are securely IN the covenant even though you refuse to allow them the sign and seal of that covenant, which in OT terms would have been circumcision at 8 days old, but in NT practice is baptism. Also, since The New is better than the Old, your children would not be "cut off from God's people" merely because you have failed to keep your obligation to fulfil the terms of God's covenant with yourself, by acknowledging God's ownership of your infants, by submitting to God's ordinance to administer to them the sign and seal of that covenant, which once was circumcision, but now is baptism. Gen. 17:14. Ps 132:11-12, Prov. 5:6-7, Prov. 7:24, and especially Ezk. 16:21.

quote:
That thou hast slain MY children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire?
(mere italics still does not seem enough of an emphasis, I would much rather have boldened the word to remind me to thump the pulpit rail and raised my voice to DRAMATISE the word MY, to drill it as deeply into my congregation's consciousness as a Spirited delivery can accomplish).

Your children, you rightly surmise are indeed "covered by Christ's saving work", but as to the theological justification for your contention you can point to no clear command or precedent anywhere in the New Testament for supporting or believing that fact. Notwithstanding the plain scriptural fact that they are NOT YOUR CHILDREN. NOT if you are yourself under God's Covenant in Christ's blood. Christ has "bought you with a price", 1 Cor. 6:20, 7:23, everything therefore that is yours is God's property, it legally belongs to God.

Your children, are IN the covenant already, by virtue of God's covenant with you, their believing parent. They have no choice, but that places them in the privileged position of "being God's property" in the unique respect of being under God's covenant.

The children of unbelieving, unconverted, unregenerate parents are NOT under God's covenant, because neither are at least one of their parents.

THEY are entirely only under prevenient Grace, which though generously allowing them all the potential benefits of this life, (including the possibility of hearing the Gospel, responding to it, and gaining all the additional benefits of living under The Covenant), does not actually include any promise by God that their children after them shall have the shepherding that Christ gives to HIS OWN sheep. Matt. 10:6, 15:24, 18:11, Luke 15:4, Jn. 17:12, 18:9. 2 Cor.4:3.

I do hope you will take the trouble to look up the references. In sermons I would quote all of them, and explain their relevance, but in a post they just take up too much space.

[ 08. February 2018, 09:56: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Ye gods. Are you not able to understand that people passionately disagree with you?

Just arrogantly and stridently stating your opinion doesn't make it right. In fact, as I've already pointed out, your beliefs make no sense to a credobaptist. Simply repeating them in an angrier tone doesn't help discussion.

[ 08. February 2018, 10:06: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the Pentecostal churches I know of it's common for children to be baptised around 8 years of age. But they will have been raised in a religious environment, and know what to expect. They're also required to be able to give their consent.

To an extent yes, but in reality the age gets pushed ever downwards, and it's often dubious exactly what the children are consenting to.
There are all sorts of interesting questions raised by the issue of "informed consent". I once Christened a child of five, growing up in a lapsed Catholic household, who came home from school one day and announced that she wanted to be Baptised and go to church. Now, to be fair dad took her to church on a regular basis and it was pretty much implicit in the conversation that if she said "actually, no" one Sunday morning she could have stayed at home and watched Ceebeebies, But the idea that a five year old has a definitive capacity to decide between all the worlds religions, and lack thereof, and judiciously conclude that she ought to be Baptised at St. Agatha's By The Gasworks is probably mistaken. I think the choices are either only Baptise adults after a rigorous programme of catechesis or Baptise anyone and so conduct yourself that, even if they subsequently decide that Richard Dawkins of the Buddha are actually on the money with regard to this one, that they have somehow benefitted from your ministrations.

I believe pretty strongly in infant baptism, but I think the real issue for which we will answer in the Day of the Lord's Coming is not how we initiated people into the community but how we treated them when they had signed up.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Living in Amish country can also make one skeptical of “ informed consent.” Baptism is a requirement for marriage, so it seems a little odd that teens all seem to get religion right around the time that they settle on a steady boyfriend or girlfriend.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Ye gods. Are you not able to understand that people passionately disagree with you?

Just arrogantly and stridently stating your opinion doesn't make it right. In fact, as I've already pointed out, your beliefs make no sense to a credobaptist. Simply repeating them in an angrier tone doesn't help discussion.

Of course I do, yes. That is why I am passionately in disagreement with them because I passionately hold my opinions just as they do.

I have no problem appreciating the extent of Kaplan Corday's passionately held beliefs, I just question his reasons for believing them, and he questions mine. There is nothing arrogant in either of our deliveries of what we passionately believe to be a true understanding of scripture. We are both believers, it is just our understandings that differ.

What is wrong with being passionate about what we believe? Christ was passionate about what he believed to be the truth and, according to scripture, "WE have the mind of Christ".

I suspect that the kind of dispassionate, intellectual discourse approved of by the scribes of Jesus' day was the cause of the people's observation:
quote:
" And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." Matt. 7:28-29.
My observation is that passionless discourse usually emanates from people who are not passionate about what they believe. What they claim to 'believe' can usually be ignored because they apparently can't be bothered enough to even be passionate about it themselves.

Kaplan Corday and myself are having a passionate debate about matters of some importance to both of us. Kindly Butt out if you can't contribute positively, Mr Cheesy.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Really. Your solution is to continue badgering a view you disagree with and telling others who tell you that you are talking past another person to "butt out".

You seem to ignore the facts that many of us have seen this discussion many times before, and that we've seen people with your level of arrogance wind opponents up before.

In fact, I think your "biblical" approach is utter bollocks and you wouldn't know constructive discussion if it but you around the face.

It isn't about "passion", it is about being a total dick when you blindly attempt to educate others.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

There are all sorts of interesting questions raised by the issue of "informed consent".

Well, the issues are raised because the context stresses informed consent and is otherwise very decisionistic.

The same thing applies within the SBC which has also seen increasing numbers of very young children being baptised alongside a theology that rejects infant baptism and is decision focused.

The twist is that at least in some of those Pentecostal/Charismatic groups paedocommunion of a kind is practised.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
In fact, I think your "biblical" approach is utter bollocks
In which case I can safely ignore your ignorant assertions.

Now stop Trolling and join the debate instead of attempting eye surgery with a plank in your eye.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I am not trolling by any sense of the definition. I actually don't usually get involved in baptism discussion because I can see both sides to the argument, and because people so often assert that their view is the only possible way to understand the issue, ignoring the fact that other views on baptism start from a very different place of understanding.

I have tried explaining this to you several times but you are not listening.

Credobaptists do not accept your premises about adults, their children and baptism. However many times you post angrily and however many times you make massive theological mountains over single verses, you are not going to impress anyone because you are talking over their heads.

No credobaptist accept that salvation for children comes via their believing parent. It doesn't matter how many times you insist it is true, they simply don't think like that. Deal with it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:


I imagine any Jewish parent in OT times would have been charged with physical assault or child abuse had they irresponsibly left circumcision of their baby boy until the age of the little girl you mentioned.

What a load of humbug this is, by the way. There are example of OT characters who are circumcised as adults.

Ironically given your predilection for making wild theological assertions based on single verses talking about whole households/families being baptised, Genesis 34:24 says that all the men in a city were circumcised, leaving no option for this to be simply about 8 day old boys. Similarly in Joshua 5. And Abraham apparently circumcised himself.

quote:

The New Covenant being in all respects 'A better covenant' has no requirement for circumcision or letting of blood, the only blood required was that of Christ himself.

The irony being that apparently the new covenant is not necessary for circumcised Jews who are inheritors of the promises to their forefathers. Why would they need to be baptised if they've inherited the promise by circumcision and baptism is the new covenant version of circumcision?

quote:
Baptism is entirely voluntary and it is not IMPOSED upon infants or adults. Infants are only baptised on the basis that they have an entitlement to it as a demonstration of their standing within the Christian community, under the self same covenant as their believing parent/s.
Credobaptists do not believe that any individual has any entitlement via their believing patents. Credobaptists believe that the covenant is between God and and individual - and that whatever parents do or don't believe is nothing to do with it.

There are no grandchildren in the kingdom of God, only children. As the saying goes.

quote:

Such is the nature of the problem which has been largely caused, not by infant baptism, nor by credo-baptism, but by the church's failure to educate itself and its parishioners in the Doctrine of Covenantal Salvation in the New Testament era of Grace.

No. The problem is pedo-baptism. What can possibly be the problem with baptising a 6 year old if their parents want it and the child doesn't? Your position makes zero sense.

[ 08. February 2018, 15:10: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
No credobaptist accept that salvation for children comes via their believing parent. It doesn't matter how many times you insist it is true, they simply don't think like that. Deal with it.
That is exactly the point. I am, as you suggest 'dealing with it'.

No atheist accepts that salvation is necessary at all, but that is no valid reason to pass up opportunity to convince them otherwise, if they are willing to engage in exploratory debate.

To be thus engaged requires one to put one's own case, while pointing out the weakness of the others reasoning, offering alternatives which they might find convincing.

I do not consider the conversation between myself and Kaplan Corday to have reached a fruitless impasse yet. He has throughout given as good as he has got, and the subject has been 'aired' from both his and my perspective, in our relative understandings of what is contained in Holy Scripture.

I agree that standing either side of defensive barricades hurling abuse at one another is unproductive, but I would suggest that neither he nor I have been guilty of that.

It was yourself that started hurling abuse by using the terms 'arrogant', 'strident' etc of another posters literary style, without addressing a single one of my arguments from scripture in a sober manner, merely being contemptuously dismissive using the term 'utter bollocks'.

Such invective unmasks your pretense, (excuse the American spelling), at scholarly sobriety.

Now perhaps you will allow the debate to continue without further interruption!
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
What a load of humbug this is, by the way. There are example of OT characters who are circumcised as adults.
And your point exactly is? Of course there were, because they had not been circumcised at 8 days as God required and as The Law therefore stipulated.

quote:
The irony being that apparently the new covenant is not necessary for circumcised Jews who are inheritors of the promises to their forefathers. Why would they need to be baptised if they've inherited the promise by circumcision and baptism is the new covenant version of circumcision?
I suggest you get a TARDIS and go back and ask Peter on the Day of Pentecost. There was probably not a single male person among the 3000 baptised that day who were not also already circumcised. What reason did Peter give on that occasion for their necessity for baptism, pray tell me? Paul gives very good reason for baptised gentiles not to be circumcised by equating baptism with circumcision.

quote:
Credobaptists do not believe that any individual has any entitlement via their believing parents.
That is because they have separated Old and New Testaments and try to treat the New Covenant as if the Old Covenant was torn up and abolished. They are unable under such a delusion to explain how "An Everlasting Covenant" Gen.17:13, can meet such an abrupt abolishment, and something completely different, (though better), be put in its place.

The Covenant is in fact one and the same Covenant in both the Old and New dispensations. The New Covenant is NEW because it is the Old Covenant with major more gracious amendments and additions won for us all by Christ at the atonement. Nevertheless God foresaw the extension of The nationally exclusive Old Covenant with Abraham, Israel and Judah, to embrace ALL nations, for those that believe.

quote:
Credobaptists believe that the covenant is between God and and individual - and that whatever parents do or don't believe is nothing to do with it.
You seem to think that what people believe makes a single whit of difference to what God has ordained. Amazing!

quote:
No. The problem is pedo-baptism. What can possibly be the problem with baptising a 6 year old if their parents want it and the child doesn't? Your position makes zero sense.
My position was that the child had chosen and that choice should be respected. The ceremony should have been halted. Clearly the 6 year old had not been prepared by her parents and baptism is not compulsory, even for a 6 year old, regardless of the wishes of the parents. The church should have postponed the ceremony until such time as a sensible decision could be agreed upon by both parents and child.

I repeat: pedo-baptism is not the problem, the problem is general ignorance of God and the way He operates, according to the evidence contained in Holy Scripture.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
You seem to think that what people believe makes a single whit of difference to what God has ordained. Amazing!

Yawn. Obvious now you state it like that I suppose: what you state is the only true, ordained, word of God. Those who think differently aren't just disagreeing with you, they're disagreeing with God.


quote:
My position was that the child had chosen and that choice should be respected. The ceremony should have been halted. Clearly the 6 year old had not been prepared by her parents and baptism is not compulsory, even for a 6 year old, regardless of the wishes of the parents.
Why do you suddenly think that a six year old knows better what is good for them than a parent? Do you somehow think that a child screaming that they don't like injections somehow over-rides the right of a parent to insist that they have life-saving surgery? Or is this nonsensical position simply about baptism?

quote:

The church should have postponed the ceremony until such time as a sensible decision could be agreed upon by both parents and child.

Unless you can point to something official stating this, I'm going to put this down as an opinion not a recognised practice.

Again, if you are trying to tell me that baptism is something that a parent can promise for a child, you can't them somehow claim that a six year old is capable of deciding that they don't want it.
quote:


I repeat: pedo-baptism is not the problem, the problem is general ignorance of God and the way He operates, according to the evidence contained in Holy Scripture.

Repeat whatever you like. I think the problem here is that you seem to think that it is perfectly fine to make promises for a non-verbal infant but that somehow a six year old is capable of making a better decision than their parents.

I've seen babies grizzling through baptism. Are they also not indicating that they don't want it? What's the difference? Surely nobody is seriously claiming that a six year old understands - or is capable of rejecting - the covenant in baptism.

[ 08. February 2018, 16:15: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Babies grizzling through baptism are generally hungry, needing to be changed, awake when they want to be asleep, or picking up adult stress.

One of the problems of this debate is that there is an underlying lack of clarity about what baptism primarily is. Is it primarily seen as an act of Christian obedience and a statement faith, or is it primarily an effectual sign of God's grace to be received by faith?

IMHO, as a matter of pastoral common sense, children old enough to want to take an active part, and especially once they are old enough to remember the experience in later life, need to be involved in the process and happy with it. In that respect it is different from (say) vaccination, because unlike vaccination, the value of baptism is related to how someone (who remembers it) receives and feels about it.

Personally, I would encourage parents who are people of faith to have their infant children baptised, but I wouldn't insist on it (even if I had the power), and I wouldn't judge them for not doing so. I'm more concerned about their conscientious commitment to helping their children grow in faith

I have also had a number of occasions when the initiative for baptism has been taken by the children themselves (8-11 y.o.), and has taken the parents somewhat by surprise.

I believe there is a good biblical case for infant baptism, but I also recognise the arguments from a credo-baptist point of view. Both viewpoints are held by people who take the Bible perfectly seriously, and I don't think we are going to solve on an internet forum a conundrum which has troubled the church for over 400 years, and been the subject of several books.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:


I believe there is a good biblical case for infant baptism, but I also recognise the arguments from a credo-baptist point of view. Both viewpoints are held by people who take the Bible perfectly seriously, and I don't think we are going to solve on an internet forum a conundrum which has troubled the church for over 400 years, and been the subject of several books.

Generally agree with this - except that I think the biblical case is actually pretty weak in both directions and riddled with contradictions.

Which makes my hackles rise when anyone talks as if their position is the only valid biblical one and that the other is obviously not very good at comprehension or listening to God.

I've had the reverse conversation with several Baptist ministers, and every time their condescending attitude drives me nuts.

Fair enough to disagree, but it seems to be one of those issues where the divide is so great that both sides cannot hear what the other is saying.

[ 08. February 2018, 17:25: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
what you state is the only true, ordained, word of God. Those who think differently aren't just disagreeing with you, they're disagreeing with God
Anyone who is unwilling to question their understanding of what God says in scripture when challenged by an alternative possible understanding is not worshiping with their whole mind.

quote:
Why do you suddenly think that a six year old knows better what is good for them than a parent? Do you somehow think that a child screaming that they don't like injections somehow over-rides the right of a parent to insist that they have life-saving surgery? Or is this nonsensical position simply about baptism?
I don't suddenly think anything like that. My thoughts are that the child expressed an opinion that deserves to be treated seriously, not just ignored. Your vaccination analogy is inappropriate because it suggests that baptism is equivalent, it is not. Baptism, either credo or pedo does not inoculate against sin.

A more appropriate analogy might be a 6year old not wanting to be black or British or in the NHS. Negotiating a better understanding in the circumstances would require more than just overriding the child's ignorant preference as it would with vaccination or going to school.

quote:
Unless you can point to something official stating this, I'm going to put this down as an opinion not a recognised practice.
How very legalistic of you.

quote:
Again, if you are trying to tell me that baptism is something that a parent can promise for a child, you can't them somehow claim that a six year old is capable of deciding that they don't want it.
I have been telling you nothing of the sort. I have only said that according to scripture God has promised covenant provision for the infants of covenant keepers.

quote:
I think the problem here is that you seem to think that it is perfectly fine to make promises for a non-verbal infant but that somehow a six year old is capable of making a better decision than their parents.
Not true. The 6 year old is still under her parents authority but they have no God given mandate to impose a ceremony on a child who clearly is unprepared for it. The question of whether a babe in arms is 'prepared' for a public ceremony does not arise. Whether the baby cooperates or not is also irrelevant since there are many things that infants are inclined not to cooperate in. Parents get used to it. They quickly get to know what is best for their child if they are good parents and good parents do not force a 6 year old to go through a public ceremony unprepared, then when the child objects or is fearful, make no attempt to understand, comfort her and remove the reason for her unnecessary but very real, distress.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Generally agree with this - except that I think the biblical case is actually pretty weak in both directions and riddled with contradictions.
I would conversely say that, given certain different a priori starting points the biblical case for both is pretty strong. But since both positions arrive at different conclusions because they started from different theological perspectives it is not surprising that two different conclusions were arrived at. The contradictions you seem to think exist are there simply because scripture is chock full of them anyway, on just about whatever subject one cares to study in any depth. With better understanding comes the ability to reconcile some of the supposed contradictions. To my mind that is what makes theology interesting.

quote:
Fair enough to disagree, but it seems to be one of those issues where the divide is so great that both sides cannot hear what the other is saying.
I agree! That is no reason however to cease debate if it might engender at least an appreciation of the other 'point of view', and therefore help to keep 'the unity of The Spirit in the bond of peace'.

[ 08. February 2018, 18:55: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

RdrEmCofE, mr cheesy, your attention is drawn to Commandment 3: attack the issue, not the person

Cool it, both of you.

/hosting

[ 08. February 2018, 19:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[ BroJames ] One of the problems of this debate is that there is an underlying lack of clarity about what baptism primarily is. Is it primarily seen as an act of Christian obedience and a statement faith, or is it primarily an effectual sign of God's grace to be received by faith?
I would say it is actually both, so the word primarily does not necessarily apply. The Disciples spent 3 and a half years with Jesus and never really understood him. What is so difficult for us to face is that we have had nearly 2000 years of not understanding him.

So pedantic condemnations of infant baptism and ignorant adherence to traditional practices without knowing the scriptural reason that the church has for over 1800 years, traditionally practiced them, both fall into the category of ignorance of scripture.

So it would seem that Baptism has become split into two almost separate components, each emphasised by two different dissenting, opposing parties. 1 Cor. 10-31 comes to mind.

It is the Primarily word that is the key because once baptism is deprived of its overall meaning and one aspect is held Primary over the other, things go badly wrong. The same goes for whether the metaphor of baptism Primarily signifies 'death' and 'resurrection' of the 'new man' or whether it is representative and symbolic of 'cleansing of sin' and 'renewal of life'. The answer of course is that the New Testament uses BOTH analogies, with the 'cleansing aspect' appearing marginally more times than the 'death and resurrection' symbolism.

The recent diversion of the thread discussion towards pedo or credo baptism and the rights or wrongs of one, (not the other because no one disagrees about that), has taken us away somewhat from the issue, which is re-baptism.

But just before we continue more on the thread title I would like to add this googlie or curve ball to the Biblical discussion.

When Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, (and lets just all assume he did), he wanted to encourage Timothy to stand up for himself when challenged by those older and in their own eyes wiser than himself.

In order to encourage Timothy, Paul never referred to his baptism, which I find somewhat surprising. Paul referred to Timothy's lineage of Christian heritage and The Laying on of Hands that he had received from Paul on a previous visit. Both Timothy's mother Eunice and his Grandmother Lois were faithful believers. His father is not mentioned. (perhaps explained by Acts. 16:1). It is quite possible that Timothy's problem with older people in his community hinged on the fact that they had no recollection of Timothy being baptised as an adult, therefore like Baptists of today they questioned the validity of his faith. Paul had Timotheus circumcised when they visted Derbe and Lystra. Acts.16:1. Paul later on in his ministry changed his mind on the issue of circumcision of Gentiles and declared it unnecessary and the equivalent of baptism. It is perfectly in keeping with the obvious acceptance of infant baptism by the church well before the Biblical cannon was formed, that the tradition grew more common with each succeeding generation of Christians because it fitted well with their originally Jewish understanding of Covenant, of family responsibility to God and a complete lack of Apostolic censure of the practice. This explaining both the lack of evidence of the practice in the New Testament, (presumably closed by 130 AD), and also the lack of any Apostolic disapproval of the practice.

We are then left with two apparently opposing factions nowadays, one for infant AND adult baptism as appropriate, the other against infant baptism, claiming adult baptism to be uniquely valid, (based entirely upon a perceived complete lack of direct evidence for it in NT scripture.)

Surely it is the principle that Church Practice should be dictated by what is NOT found in scripture, that needs to be called into question here.

If this is going to be lifted up as an overriding principle, then how else might the church have to reevaluate its conduct in order to achieve complete consistency in accord with this principle and is the principle logical anyway. There are many things not recorded in scripture, Jn. 21:25. Are we supposed to ban women from receiving communion because, there is no recorded incidence of it ever happening in scripture?

pedo-baptists justify their practice, some on the grounds of very long standing tradition within the church going back before the Bible cannon existed, some on the grounds of Covenant Theology starting with the Old Testament and continuing, unbroken but enhanced, into the New. I can't help feeling, as a pedo-baptist under censure from credo-baptists, a bit the way Timothy might have felt when his pastoral validity was called into question by supposedly more qualified 'believers'.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the biblical case is actually pretty weak in both directions and riddled with contradictions.

Which makes my hackles rise when anyone talks as if their position is the only valid biblical one and that the other is obviously not very good at comprehension or listening to God.

I've had the reverse conversation with several Baptist ministers, and every time their condescending attitude drives me nuts.

But to be fair to them, if they didn't see their own position as particularly important than there would be no reason for their denomination to exist! Believer's baptism is their movement's one distinctive feature!

The CofE risks shocking its traditionalists when it 'tweaks' its baptismal policy here and there, but it doesn't risk its existence or status in doing so. By contrast, the evangelical denominations become more vulnerable when they tone down their position. This should be borne in mind when criticisiting them.

In the long run I think it's for the best that neither Jesus nor St Paul stressed one form of baptism over any other. It's made the religion more flexible, more adaptable to different conditions, different pastoral and psychological needs.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
There are two words I should like to get rid of from my Bible:

One is the word 'church' which the King James Bible translators deliberately used to translate the word 'ekklesia'. That word merely means any type of assembly or gathering - and Wycliffe had deliberately tranlated it as 'congregation' - but the translators used the word 'church' in order to maintain the authority of the Church of England and the King's control within it.

The word 'Church' was a loaded one because at the time it referred to one thing - the authoritative institution.


The second word is the word 'baptism.'
If I were to say that word to anyone and ask them what came to mind, they would undoubtedly reflect back a meaning depending on their ecclesiology - a child over a font, an adult in a tank; and always a Christian initiation ceremony, unrepeatable and sacramental.

However, that word 'baptiso' is not an ecclesiastical word; it's like ekklesia - it has been adopted and restricted to one meaning.
It simply means immersed - and the word we now use is merely the anglicised version because had the King James translators used the English word 'immerse' it would have destroyed the practice, as far as Biblical command was concerned, of sprinkling.
By inventing the word 'baptise' the translators and church authorities could continue to use the practice set up by Tradition over the centuries.

Had they translated the word as 'immerse' they would have reflected the actual practice of the Jerusalem church and the Apostles which was, when a Jewish man was converted to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, he went to be ritually immersed (a Jewish practice of ritual washing) in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I have no argument with what it became in the latter Christian centuries; but I really do not think we can go back to the Acts of the Apostles for precedent, instruction, example or theology of Christian infant or adult baptism.

What we read about on the Day of Pentecost was nothing more than ritual washing. Not 'Baptism' in the Christian sacramental sense.

[ 08. February 2018, 21:13: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
One is the word 'church' which the King James Bible translators deliberately used to translate the word 'ekklesia'.
Indeed, and it is a word which is applicable to God's people in both Old and New Testaments.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
One is the word 'church' which the King James Bible translators deliberately used to translate the word 'ekklesia'.
Indeed, and it is a word which is applicable to God's people in both Old and New Testaments.
But it does not refer to an hierarchical institution. That's the reason the KJV uses it. The Church under the King needed authority given to it and so the word 'church' was used to translate the word for 'congregation' or 'gathering' with the sole purpose of telling the people that James' Church was divinely ordained, and that, for example, the gates of hell would not prevail against 'his' Church.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
But it does not refer to an hierarchical institution. That's the reason the KJV uses it. The Church under the King needed authority given to it and so the word 'church' was used to translate the word for 'congregation' or 'gathering' with the sole purpose of telling the people that James' Church was divinely ordained, and that, for example, the gates of hell would not prevail against 'his' Church.
We now witness the double irony therefore of homophobic American Republican Constitutional Enthusiasts of the King James Bible Only Brigade in the USA, accepting only a translation commissioned by a gay Monarch as their infallible theological yardstick.

I hesitated to say 'metric' because they still don't like that.

[Yipee]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Your argument would hold more water were it not for the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Churches immerse babies when they baptise them, Mudfrog.

Christianity isn't simply an Anglophone thing.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
From a little un-christened girl, the youngest of six, in an unchurched, hard drinking and soon to be broken home, in a non-church infants school my wife knew that God loved her. Always has. It's her earliest coherent memory. She submitted to Anglican christening prior to confirmation and was re-baptized by Baptists a few years later.

I think she was baptized by the Holy Spirit as a little girl regardless.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't think anyone, paedobaptist or credo-baptist or 'dry-clean' Salvationist is saying that God is in any way bound or restricted by whatever mode is applied.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Baptism is for us, not for God.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
But just before we continue more on the thread title I would like to add this googlie or curve ball to the Biblical discussion.

Your speculative Timothy discursion is neither a "curve ball" nor a "googlie", but a covert admission of desperation.

Your ingenuity, prolixity and indefatigability are impressive and entertaining, but inevitably come to grief against two facts.

The first is your bewildering confusion over the difference between the use of covenant in the OT and the NT.

The other is the stubborn and embarrassing absence of any reference whatsoever to paedobaptism in the NT.

You can churn out more and more arcane sophistry in attempts to bypass these two immovable obstacles until you are blue in the face, but you are not going to convince anyone except yourself.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[ Caplan Korday ] The first is your bewildering confusion over the difference between the use of covenant in the OT and the NT.
It is not I that am confused regarding the essential continuity between the Old Covenant and the New.

The Christian Church is not a new Church, (ecclesia), but is identical with that of Israel. There is but one olive tree and it lives on (Rom. 11:16 ff.) The Christian Church is founded on the same covenant and on the same Gospel: the promise of redemption by Christ. Because of the continuity of the covenant the new Israel is grafted into the old, and there is now but a single people.

This doctrine, according to which the Church is today founded on the Abrahamic covenant - in other words, that the plan of salvation revealed in the Gospel was revealed to Abraham and to the saints of the Old Testament, and that they were saved in exactly the same manner as has been the case with humankind since the coming of Christ, namely, by faith in Christ - this doctrine is not revealed to us in scripture in an accidental manner. It forms an integral part of the very substance of the Gospel. It is present in the teaching of our Lord, who came to fulfil and not to abolish the promise (Lk. 24:27), and who bade those who interrogated Him to search the Scriptures of the Old Testament if they wished to understand what He, the Christ, was teaching.

The Apostles did the same. The Christians at Berea were praised because they examined the Scriptures every day in order to verify whether the doctrines taught by the Apostles accorded with this infallible norm (Acts 17:11.) These messengers of Christ made constant reference to the Old Testament in support of their teaching. Paul said that the Gospel which he preached had already been taught in the law and the prophets (Rom. 3:21 f.). He declared to the Gentiles that they were grafted into the old olive-tree so that they might partake of its root and sap (Rom. 11:17).

It is thus entirely illegitimate to maintain that there is an essential contrast between the New Testament covenant of grace and that same covenant in the Old Testament. The Gospel covenant of grace is the prolongation of the Abrahamic covenant. The Christian Church is the continuation of the Church of Israel.

You may disagree with these conclusions, in view of principles which you may esteem as superior, if that is so, I shall merely say that you do not appear to regard yourself as bound by the exegesis of the Apostles, especially Paul.

quote:
The other is the stubborn and embarrassing absence of any reference whatsoever to paedobaptism in the NT.
It is not an embarrassing absence it is perfectly explicable, if the church evolved the practice toward the end of the Apostolic period and it became well established before the Biblical cannon was fixed, as history and tradition attest.

As I have said before, if you wish to base your church praxis on the spurious principle of (If examples of the practice are missing from the New Testament it must therefore be forbidden) then you had better stop all the women in your church from receiving communion. Because there is not a single mention or example anywhere in the New Testament of a woman receiving the sacrament of The Lords Supper. I say it is your bogus principle that is the problem, not the fact that according to your principle they should be prevented from receiving.

Obviously a watertight case can easily be made for women receiving communion by use of other considerations besides the mere fact that no actual example of it exists throughout the whole of the NT scripture.

The same principles and considerations can just as easily be used to justify the baptism of infants.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[ Caplan Korday ] The first is your bewildering confusion over the difference between the use of covenant in the OT and the NT.
In conclusion, God has always had but a single Church in the world. The God of the Old Testament is our Lord : the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob is the God of our covenant and our Father.

Our Savior was the Savior of the saints who lived before his coming in the flesh. The divine Person who brought the Israelites out pf Egypt and led them through the wilderness, who appeared in all His glory to Isaiah in the temple, and towards whose coming the eyes of the people of God have from the beginning been turned in faith and hope, is the same whom we acknowledge as God manifest in the flesh, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Consequently, He who was head of the Theocracy is head of the Church. The blood which He shed for us has been shed from the foundation of the world, as well to atone for the transgressions committed under the first testament (Heb. 9:15) as for us and our salvation. The promise, whose fulfilment the twelve tribes who fervently served God night and day awaited (Acts 26:7) is precisely the promise upon which we rest. The faith which saved Abraham was, as far as its nature and its object were concerned, the very same as that which is the condition of salvation under the Gospel. "The city which has secure foundations, whose architect is God" (Heb. 11:10) is the Jerusalem resplendent with glory, the new heavens, to which we aspire.

Do you wish to to pretend that you possess a greater measure of the Holy Spirit than the Apostles and a better understanding of the 'secrets' of God?

To reject the authority of the Apostles on one point is to invalidate any authoritative appeal to them when our opinion happens to be in accordance with theirs!

If the exegesis of the Apostles is not binding, what other exegisis can claim to be able to bind our minds and hearts? For myself I feel myself bound, and not only bound, but constrained and persuaded by the exegesis of the Apostles, and at this point of the debate I can only say to you who disagree with me : Non Possumus.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Your comments would hold more water, Kaplan, if there was only one Shipmate arguing for a paedo-baptist position. There appear to be several and not all of them are using the kind of discursive sophistry you describe.

Yes, I find the tangents about Timothy baffling and to be honest I find much of the Reformed covenantal emphasis to be a big yawn - it's all too legal and formal for my taste.

But I do think there's more to it than, 'It's not in the Bible so anyone who practices it is stupid and not as biblical as us superior evangelical credo-baptists,' which is how your argument sounds at times.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
I attended a Baptist church with my parents as a child, and expressed a wish to be baptised at the age of 11. I knew what I was doing and my parents had nothing to do with the decision, though they agreed I could. I attended baptismal preparation classes, alongside several adults (including one man who was nearly 70; this wasn't an attempt to copy the cool older kids or anything).
Three days before the baptism, two of the deacons saw each of us individually to check we had understood what we were doing and were "ready". There were a lot of open-ended questions, the two men were in formal suits and it was like a formal interview. I was very nervous and although I'd already written out my testimony for Sunday (in place of a sermon, each candidate read out to the congregation their personal testimony of coming to faith before baptism) I didn't have it with me. I stammered my way through the questions and failed, basically. I was the only one to be told I couldn't, after all, be baptised that Sunday.
I didn't talk to my parents much about this. I did talk quite a lot to God and wrote a lot in my diary. I did wonder if I had failed God in not explaining my faith as I didn't want to think that God had failed me. I do vividly remember hearing a sermon on Job a couple of months later and feeling some reassurance that sometimes, when you couldn't understand why things happened, God was allowing you to be tested and you would be stronger in the end. I actually told the pastor this after the sermon and he said it didn't really apply to a decision about baptising people. I then started to cry, to my embarrassment. He looked equally embarrassed, which wasn't what I intended.

I think he talked to the deacons again. They arranged to see me again a few months later, and this time agreed that I could write the answers to their questions to reduce my nervousness. This was done without warning, in a side room on my own with just a pen and paper - presumably they wanted to ensure my parents hadn't helped! - but it was fine. I passed. I was therefore baptised at just under 12, alongside a number of teenagers. And it meant something completely different than it should have done. It was not an expression of my faith or my personal decision to follow Jesus; it was an expression of the church's acknowledgement that I wasn't a child, and a wish to put me into a category of people they could understand.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Aravis]. . . . .I didn't talk to my parents much about this. I did talk quite a lot to God and wrote a lot in my diary. I did wonder if I had failed God in not explaining my faith as I didn't want to think that God had failed me. . . . . .
May I say you had as an 11 year old a better understanding of God's involvement in your problem than has Kaplan Corday in all his mature years.

What most concerns me about your upsetting experience is the 'gatekeeping' that was going on, supposedly in the interests of the church rather than in your interests as a child of the covenant.

As far as they were concerned, it seems to me, there were two possible aspects to their opposition to your being baptised.

(1) Concern perhaps for you and the validity of your commitment, (judging from an adult perspective regarding an 11 year old as being insufficiently cognisant of God's will for her and her's for God.) This was both misguidedly, patronisingly protective of you, and arrogant in its assumption that 'a girl, of your age' was incapable of hearing and knowing God's voice in the matter.

(2) Concern perhaps for their church, in that they saw themselves as the 'gatekeepers' who had been given the responsibility by God, (or their fellow elders), to ensure the sincerity and probity of each and every candidate, thus ensuring the unblemished perfection of their church.

In the first case, the irony is that their ignorance of the effects of being a covenant covered child prevented their discernment of the validity of your calling by God to close voluntarily, in your own right, with the covenant He already had with you through your parent/s covenant relationship with Him.

In the second, they had no right whatever to act as metaphorical pharisaical gate keepers to membership of Christ's Church, because only God and Christ himself have a mandate to exercise that function.

Your voluntary desire to draw closer to God in personal communion is entirely consistent with what God promises to the children of believers, in the scriptures.

quote:
But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him,
and his righteousness unto children's children;
To such as keep his covenant,
and to those that remember his commandments to do them.Ps. 103:17-18.

The ultimate irony is that their concern for themselves and their supposed concern for you had the unwarranted effect of challenging your faith instead of confirming it and revealing to you the possibility that your wishes were evidence that God was expressing His desire to complete the covenantal contract with you, and at such a young age.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Aravis, I felt very sad reading some parts of your post, that because you didn't find the right words at the 'right' time you were, in the first instance, denied a particular gift of God's grace, that you knew was right for you. Though of course I recognize the responsibility the elders would have felt to ensure you knew what you were doing.

More generally applied, isn't one of the strengths of baptism the fact that it is action and Grace - not dependant on human intellect, language and set criteria, no matter how well meant? We share the communion meal (or should) because we are part of the family of Christ, not because we can source and understand the ingredients and keep our elbows off the table.

Can't baptism be that thing we do when words aren't enough and we just let God do something - whatever that is - through the water?

I know I'm over-simplifying it. But I personally dislike the endless verbosity of the Anglican baptism rites, which seem to major on crow-barring as much theology, doctrine, affirmations, and historical references as possible. It's as if the compilers got together and said: this could be our one and only chance to tell the visitors what this is all about, whack 'em with the whole enchilada! By the time I've finished with a baptism, I usually feel like I've run a mental and physical marathon!
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aravis, that made me angry. God bless you.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think Aravis's contribution and the responses to it highlight some of the ambivalence I feel about this whole area.

On the one hand you get the standard evangelical guilt-by-association stuff ... you know how it goes:

'Paedobaptists were/are complicit with all that Theodosian/Constantinian stuff unlike us purer and more biblical credobaptists ... Pah! All that mumbo-jumbo and robed priests muttering magic words. You don't find us going in for all that crap ...'

Then we hear of some of the crap that they do in for. Instead of a dick-head in a cassock and alb there are dick-heads in blue serge suits ...

Or worse, shorts and Hawaiian shirts.

[Razz]

'How dare those corrupt, Constantinian churches act as gate-keepers and decide who does or doesn't get baptised ...'

Hang on a minute ...

It cuts both ways. More biblical than thou so often equates to holier than thou and all the Pharisaical nastiness that goes with that.

The irony is that it's deemed to be ok because it's the gathered congregation that gets to decide how anal or otherwise it wants to behave ...

Trouble is, both sides can sound exceedingly arrogant.

I don't know how we get around that.

It's there.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But I do think there's more to it than, 'It's not in the Bible so anyone who practices it is stupid and not as biblical as us superior evangelical credo-baptists,' which is how your argument sounds at times.

There is "more to it".

It is rather a matter of (as in the case of other fellow-Christians with whom I disagree, such as YECers, Calvinists and dispensationalists): "I disagree with you, but am happy to live in peaceful co-existence with you unless you insist on coming out and asserting that your position is the only biblical possibility, in which case I will take you on".
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
The irony is that it's deemed to be ok because it's the gathered congregation that gets to decide how anal or otherwise it wants to behave ...
I'm assuming by 'gathered' you just mean the 'cloud of witnesses' to the event, whatever faith community. Presumably if it is a rite being celebrated in 'their' church, then they will mostly be of a certain agreed standpoint on the meaning of what they are being presented with. This presumably enhanced by some words of explanation from whoever is conducting the event.

As individuals we all bring our own preconceptions whenever we attend a baptism and these tend to also be overlaid by denominational preconceptions, the degree to which our understanding is affected, we are probably mostly unaware.

Normally there is no problem. A Baptist congregation has a clear and agreed position on where baptism fits into their praxis. An Anglican, Lutheran, RC, Orthodox, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Reformed etc. would also agree on the principle of adult baptism, if the candidate is an adult, and on the principle of infant baptism if the candidate is an infant.

Where the problem pops up, and this is the thread subject, is when an adult who was previously baptised as an infant, wants to be baptised again, because either they feel 'unregenerate' or they have been told by others they are 'unregenerate', (and believe it), until they perform a certain ritual in a certain way.

It is at that point that perhaps the fur begins to fly and aspersions may be cast, by one faction or another. At that point 1 Cor. 1:10-31 should come into effect.

At such times, (if you happen to be a baptist at an infant baptism or an Anglican, RC etc at an adult Re-baptism), we should take to heart Paul's advice.
quote:
" . . my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power, that your faith should not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." 1 Cor. 2:4-5.
In other words, God already knows and understands the motivation of the candidate, whether (adult or infant), and will act accordingly. It's nobody else business but the candidates and God.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Kaplan Corday] "I disagree with you, but am happy to live in peaceful co-existence with you unless you insist on coming out and asserting that your position is the only biblical possibility, in which case I will take you on".
But isn't that exactly what you are doing on the issue of whether infant baptism is valid? Asserting your position is the only biblical possibility.

I don't remember taking you to task on whether adult baptism is valid. It is! Why should I disagree, I believe in it myself, for adults, currently outside the covenant, until 'regeneration' then requesting baptism. Along with faith in Jesus Christ, it is the recognised scriptural way of adults entering the Covenant.

It seems to be you that is insisting that your "position on Adult baptism is the only biblical possibility", in which case I have disagreed with you and have taken you on.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I must admit, Kaplan, that I've rather interpreted your posts as maintaining that credobaptism is THE only true biblical form of baptism.

So whilst I also find some of RdrEmCofE's arguments rather convoluted and arcane, I can certainly see why he wants to 'take you on.'

Perhaps you both want to take the other on?

I do despair at times - at both sides in this equation.

At the risk of reductionism, it oftens sounds like:

Historic Church sacramentalist: We've got apostolic succession and Tradition, the rest of you with your heretickal conventicles can sod right off. Nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

Gathered church congregationalist: We don't need your steenkin' apostolic succession and Tradition. You can sod right off because we're more biblical and holier than you are - nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

And round and round and on and on it goes.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Gamaliel, as so often, I agree.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Gamaliel] Historic Church sacramentalist: We've got apostolic succession and Tradition, the rest of you with your heretickal conventicles can sod right off. Nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

Gathered church congregationalist: We don't need your steenkin' apostolic succession and Tradition. You can sod right off because we're more biblical and holier than you are - nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

And round and round and on and on it goes.

And meanwhile, while one side can offer nothing else but "Its not anywhere in the New Testament", as if that is a clinching coup de gras, (ignoring all the other important things missing but still practicing them), the other's Biblically based chapter and verse arguments go unanswered, are ignored and contemptuously dismissed as 'humbug', 'yawn', 'arcane sophistry', 'discursive sophistry', 'bollocks', etc but without any scripturally based refutation of the arguments and their scriptural justification put forward, just dismissive invective. If this what is considered to be debate, I feel I have been wasting my time outlining the exegesis of The Apostles on the subject.

It seems there are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
The Christian Church is founded on the same covenant and on the same Gospel: the promise of redemption by Christ.

Certainly no-one was ever saved other than by Christ's work.

In that sense, there is undoubtedly a single underlying (or overarching) covenant of grace.

But to leave it at that is an oversimplification, because the limitations of the revelation to, and experience of, OT Israel's covenant with God was such that the writer to the Hebrews could refer to the new, NT-era covenant as a "better" (ie different) covenant.

OT Israelites entered that covenant unconsciously and automatically by birth and circumcision, and were compulsorily obliged to observe its conditions whether they liked it or not, under the threat of the possible death penalty for breaking it.

The NT conception of covenant is better because it is explicitly of grace; is voluntary and relational; and is based on a free response to Christ's offer and invitation, which is impossible for a baby.

You yourself know quite well that your own experience of covenant was quite different from that of an OT Israelite, so don't pretend otherwise.

You did not grow up forced into a covenant relationship which you hadn't chosen, observing rituals and laws coerced upon you, and maintained by reliance on an external priesthood and system of sacrifices.

No wonder Paul rejoices in his freedom from such an obsolete expression of covenant.

quote:
I shall merely say that you do not appear to regard yourself as bound by the exegesis of the Apostles, especially Paul.
This makes me feel very nostalgic.

As a young Christian I can remember this form of syllogistic spiritual blackmail:-
My interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one.
You disagree with it.
Ergo, you think you know better than the Bible and God.

quote:
it became well established before the Biblical cannon was fixed, as history and tradition attest.
Certainly there are references to the practice of paedobaptism prior to the finalisation of the cannon (sic) as evidenced by Athanasius's 367 Paschal Letter, but the first references to it are in Irenaeus, long after the NT material was completed.

Given the number of NT passages which refer to the practice and theology of baptism without a single reference to paedobaptism, it is obtuse to persevere in trying to read it back into the canon.

quote:
Obviously a watertight case can easily be made for women receiving communion by use of other considerations besides the mere fact that no actual example of it exists throughout the whole of the NT scripture.

The same principles and considerations can just as easily be used to justify the baptism of infants.

You are comparing apples with oranges.

Women are exactly the same as men in being capable of entering into, and living out, a faith relationship with Christ.

An unconscious baby is capable of neither.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Do you wish to to pretend that you possess a greater measure of the Holy Spirit than the Apostles and a better understanding of the 'secrets' of God?

To reject the authority of the Apostles on one point is to invalidate any authoritative appeal to them when our opinion happens to be in accordance with theirs!

Just another reminder that you are not God.

It's true!

Don't take my word for it - ask anyone.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Kaplan Coorday] OT Israel's covenant with God was such that the writer to the Hebrews could refer to the new, NT-era covenant as a "better" (ie different) covenant.
There are many ways in which the New Covenant is a 'better' covenant. Not the least of which is that both men and women are visibly signed and sealed with the symbol of its effect, namely baptism instead of circumcision. That is not however to say that it is (i.e.different).

In WW2 there were more than 23 different marks of Spitfire, each one (better) than the previous, but all of them were Spitfires, none of them was an (i.e. different) aircraft.

If a supposed improvement to the latest one rendered a major beneficial aspect of all previous ones inoperative, it would not have been considered (in all respects a better Spitfire). Each Mk retained the best features of the previous with modifications and improvements.

God's central promise of the covenant in both old and new testaments remains,
quote:
"I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. Gen.17:7.
"I will be your God and you shall be my people; I will be your God and you shall be My son; I shall call you My son and you shall call me Father, " is the promise of the Gospel of which baptism is the sign and seal, fulfilled for whoever believes the promise and repents. God declares to us by baptism that He wishes to possess us for His people and His heritage.

God even assured Abraham beforehand that he would have a son, he would call him Isaac and says to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant with him [Isaac] as an everlasting covenant, (though he has not even yet been born), for his descendants after him." Gen. 17:19.

Yet you continue to insist that this most gracious promise to include descendants, has been incised, rescinded, abolished, cut out, missing and (you imply broken by God who promised it would be 'an everlasting promise'), IS YET STILL a "Better Covenant".

It is as if you think a Mk 25 Spitfire, (there were only 24), that has an 88mm cannon and 2000lb bombs fitted but can no longer FLY is a better Spitfire.


You say:
quote:
The NT conception of covenant is better because it is explicitly of grace; is voluntary and relational; and is based on a free response to Christ's offer and invitation, which is impossible for a baby.
Your NT conception, not the NT conception in fact St Paul would profoundly disagree with your conception, judging from Rom. Chapter 11. where he emphasises the essential continuity of The Covenant in all its beneficial aspects to both Jew and Gentile.

Christ's invitation was "Come unto me all you that travail and I will give you rest". Little children and infants included, in fact, even held up as an example of what "coming unto Him entailed".

You say:
quote:
You did not grow up forced into a covenant relationship which you hadn't chosen, observing rituals and laws coerced upon you, and maintained by reliance on an external priesthood and system of sacrifices.
Your problem seems to be that you have a very jaundiced view of God's promises within a covenant relationship. We are not 'forced into it', just as Abraham was not 'forced' into it, neither was Isaac 'forced' into it. We are Graciously permitted to enter it. Though being a covenant between Almighty God and sinful man it is a very unequal relationship, we are nevertheless not 'forced'.

The Law is not 'coerced upon the human race'.
quote:
"For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.". Prov. 4:2. "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Rom.7:12. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matt.5:17.
And the external priesthood and system of sacrifices was temporarily instituted and ordained by God Himself, in case you have forgotten. Being no longer necessary it has been superseded by the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
quote:
" . . . we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God". Heb.4:14.
You say:
quote:
No wonder Paul rejoices in his freedom from such an obsolete expression of covenant.
I think you rudely misrepresent Paul with your assertion.
quote:
"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." Rom.11:26-27.
You say:
quote:
My interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one.
You disagree with it.

So we have it from your own mouth, or rather, keystrokes, you do apparently believe you alone are privy to God's mind.

quote:
You are comparing apples with oranges.
I am applying you own bogus principle to another issue that is not expressly exemplified in New Testament scripture. If a principle is to be applied it should be applied consistently, not selectively as you seem to want to do.

quote:
Women are exactly the same as men in being capable of entering into, and living out, a faith relationship with Christ. An unconscious baby is capable of neither.
That is true of a 'faith relationship' in adulthood, but untrue of the relationship God has with the infants of believers. Their relationship with God is based upon different principles, outlined in scripture for those of us who take the trouble to seek them out and accept them by faith. You obviously have not and don't. Don't blame me if you don't understand them.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The mention of cannon on Spitfires highlights one of the difficulties I'm having with this conversation.

Is it coincidence that both Kaplan and RdrEmCofE have mis-spelt canon as 'cannon' at times?

Because it seems to me that both are using the scriptures as they would pieces of artillery, to shoot off round after round at their opponents ...

[Roll Eyes]

There are blind-spots and ironies on both sides, it seems to me and I have no idea how to resolve them.

Kaplan's accusing RdrEmCofE of syllogism and of baseball batting his opponents over the head with a 'correct' interpretation of scripture without apparently realising that he is doing exactly the same thing himself.

I'd like to bash both their heads together but realise that my own head would get sandwiched and knocked between the two.

There is no way around it.

The only apparent 'solution' would be to adopt the sort of stance the Salvation Army or the Quakers do - in their very different ways - and brush the whole thing under the carpet.

Ok, ok, I know that Salvationists don't diss or dismiss baptism even though they choose not to practice it and I don't want to start another Salvationists versus everyone else debate ...

And yes, I am fully aware that Salvationists can go and get baptised elsewhere if that's how their conscience moves them.

But I've yet to see how Kaplan's argument is any different in its approach than that of RdrEmCofE.

Kaplan is effectively saying:

'I can interpret scripture better than you can so sod off.'

RdrEmCofE is also saying:

'I can interpret scripture better than you so you can also sod off.'

Perhaps someone would care to point out where the differences lie in their respective approaches?

All they are doing is trying to bombard one another into submission, it seems to me.

Eventually they'll run out of energy or run out of ammunition.

Enough of the 'cannons' already. Enough of the self-appointed artilleryman role ...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Host Hat On

RdrEmCofE, Kaplan Corday

You are demonstrating, very clearly, something more than a clash of ideas. Read Commandment 4. There is also a clash of personalities in play, leading to a mutual loss of respect for one another's arguments, and further personal sniping (Commandment 3).

You have two options. End the argument or take it to Hell. You've already had one Hostly rebuke. Ignore this formal warning and you get reported to Admin.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

[ 11. February 2018, 11:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Kaplan is effectively saying:

'I can interpret scripture better than you can so sod off.'

RdrEmCofE is also saying:

'I can interpret scripture better than you so you can also sod off.'

Perhaps someone would care to point out where the differences lie in their respective approaches?

Could I suggest that the difference is that I have tried to give account of the hope that is in me, using scripture to try to explain my position on why God allows infants to be batised. A fairly positive approach.

Whereas Kaplan is effectively explaining to me why I should not believe what I do believe, using what is not in scripture as proof that baptising infants is not permitted by God. A fairly negative approach, I think.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
RdrEmCofE

If you want to discuss any aspect of my ruling, take it to the Styx.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:
Historic Church sacramentalist: We've got apostolic succession and Tradition, the rest of you with your heretickal conventicles can sod right off. Nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

Gathered church congregationalist: We don't need your steenkin' apostolic succession and Tradition. You can sod right off because we're more biblical and holier than you are - nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

And round and round and on and on it goes.

I think this is bang on. I was Baptised as an infant, Baptised/ endured a watery reaffirmation of faith (delete as appropriate) as an adult and subsequently Confirmed. I think the Baptised and Confirmed guys were bang on as to doctrine. As to holiness there was a cigarette paper between them, if that.

There should be a German word for positions we hold strongly without thinking our opponents are bad people. Oh wait, what's the German for being a grown up?
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:

Historic Church sacramentalist: We've got apostolic succession and Tradition, the rest of you with your heretickal conventicles can sod right off. Nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

Gathered church congregationalist: We don't need your steenkin' apostolic succession and Tradition. You can sod right off because we're more biblical and holier than you are - nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

And round and round and on and on it goes.

It only goes 'on and on and round and round' because one 'side' effectively accuses the other of heresy while the accused, when answering the charge using arguments employed by the Apostles from the scriptures is then tacitly assumed to be merely 'twisting them to the destruction of infants'. So the whole debate becomes embroiled in antagonism like a 'Court of The Star Chamber' or a 'Trial of the Spanish Inquisition'. (I never expected that). (Nobody expected that).

Meanwhile others contribute only by either throwing the occasional stone themselves or by standing by 'with the coats of those who do, at their feet'. Acts 8:38.

I could have gone on to describe in detail exactly how New Testament scripture supports the contention that The New Covenant is essentially the fulfilment and improvement of the Old, not the eradication and complete replacement of it by a covenant which is 'paired down' and 'lobotomised' with respect to the gracious promises inherent and integral to the Old one, namely the everlasting promise of God to the children of believers and covenant keepers.

I say I could have, but I won't because obviously there is a palpable lack of interest here in what the cannon of scripture says on the matter, (it having been said so may times before apparently), and the general opinion aboard ship seems to be that the reliance upon the truth of scripture, and recourse to it, backed by chapter and verse, is characterised as an unwelcome bombardment and a disturbance of the peace, rather than a scriptural illumination of the subject.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
In WW2 there were more than 23 different marks of Spitfire, each one (better) than the previous, but all of them were Spitfires, none of them was an (i.e. different) aircraft.

A more helpful (while still inadequate) aeronautical analogy would be a comparison of a Sopwith Camel with an F-22 Raptor.

There is continuity, because both are aircraft.

And it in no way detracts from the extraordinary, ground-breaking significance of the earliest aeroplanes, as representing the radical breakthrough triumph of heavier-than-air flight.

But it also acknowledges the reality of the mind-blowing differences between the two, which go far beyond mere tinkering with an existing model (as in the example of the Spitfires).

Any conception of the developing revelation of biblical covenant must retain the element of continuity (ie the ongoing desire of God for relationship with his people, both OT and NT), but must also do justice to the superiority ("better" Heb 8:6) of its NT form of expression - which sees covenant not only transformed by its grounding in the Christ-event, but also as now including volition and relationship as a replacement for legalism and coercion (eg the circumcision of unconscious babies).

[ 12. February 2018, 09:37: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Kaplan Cordite] [Smile] Do I understand correctly that you wish to continue our conversation as good reformed Christians who both believe doctrine should be established biblically?
.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'll assume Cordite is an automated text correction in a clearly mangled post. Obviously most unfortunate.

If you want that above post deleted, I'll do that.

[ 12. February 2018, 10:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
No, it was a joke, followed by a smiley faced emoticon, in reference to the bombarding of artillery that we stood accused of recently.

If Kaplan is up for it I am quite willing to engage with him in continued, reasoned debate on an issue of obvious concern to us both. As long as invective is restrained and hostilities cease.

Feel at liberty to correct the pun if you wish, but I assure you it was genuinely good natured on my part.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Kaplan Corday] A more helpful (while still inadequate) aeronautical analogy would be a comparison of a Sopwith Camel with an F-22 Raptor.

There is continuity, because both are aircraft.

And it in no way detracts from the extraordinary, ground-breaking significance of the earliest aeroplanes, as representing the radical breakthrough triumph of heavier-than-air flight.

But it also acknowledges the reality of the mind-blowing differences between the two, which go far beyond mere tinkering with an existing model (as in the example of the Spitfires).

The mind blowing differences are quite easy to enumerate and the ground breaking significance is not as extensive as you seem to think.

Certainly many of the restrictions, drawbacks and penalties which were inherent under the terms of The Old Covenant have been abolished

quote:
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Heb.8:13
quote:
Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness.
Implying of course that the New Covenant also has regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness.

Under the New Covenant the regulation for worship is "True worshippers will worship the Father in Spirit and in truth." Jn. 4:23.

The earthly place of holiness is the Christian Family, the people of God, the individual Covenant keeping believer. Heb. 10:25, Jn.17:19, Acts 20:32, 26:18, Rom. 15:16, 1 Cor. 1:2, 6:11, 7:14, 1 Tim.4:5, 2 Tim. 2:21, Heb. 2:11, 10:10, 10:14, 10:29, Jude 1:1.

So all the bloody sacrificial system and priestly intermediary system, attached under Moses at Sinai, and appended to the original FAITH Covenant made with Abraham has been abolished and done away with entirely.

But NOT the original promises made by God to Abraham and the unborn Isaac, concerning their descendants. Provisions are attached but the principle remains the same. God keeps His promises. When He says a promise is everlasting it MUST BE. Gen. 9:16, 17:7, 18:8, 17:13, 17:19, and especially Heb. 13:20

quote:
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
You can't support a thesis in which one Old everlasting covenant has been abolished and replaced with an entirely New likewise everlasting covenant. That just does not make sense of the word everlasting. The only sensible reading of Heb. 13:20-21 would have to be that the whole Covenant with Abraham of FAITH is the one eternal covenant, which continues everlastingly, and the covenant of blood, works and ordinances, added and attached at Sinai under Moses, is the one that is now abolished.


Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. Heb. 6:1-3.

In infant baptism and its Biblical justification we are not dealing with the milk of the Gospel or elementary doctrines. Discussion of the covenant and its principles pertaining to our own era requires us to go on to maturity.

So only the inessential elements of The Old Covenant, (i.e. the sacrifies, priesthood, tabernacle etc.) have been abolished and superseded by the atoning sacrifice and High Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

quote:
For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place, having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age [actually now the age that has past]). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.

.

All this has been abolished. I agree.

quote:
[Kaplan Corday] A more helpful (while still inadequate) aeronautical analogy would be a comparison of a Sopwith Camel with an F-22 Raptor.

There is continuity, because both are aircraft.

To return to your analogy: I don't disagree over the contrast extent between your F-22 Raptor and your Sopwith Camel. The New Covenant is undoubtedly much better without Moses, The Law, The bloody sacrifices, the Priesthood, Scribes and Pharisees, the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies and all the rest of the unhygienic paraphernalia accrescent to the whole bloody, filthy, sacrificial system.

It took the death of God's Only Son and invasion by The Romans and destruction of The Temple to finally put a stop to all that crap.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
No, it was a joke, followed by a smiley faced emoticon, in reference to the bombarding of artillery that we stood accused of recently.

If Kaplan is up for it I am quite willing to engage with him in continued, reasoned debate on an issue of obvious concern to us both. As long as invective is restrained and hostilities cease.

RdrEmCofE, what counts as invective and hostilities here is subject to the appraisal of the hosts and admins, not whatever standard you choose to set, and may challenged in the Styx, and in the Styx only.

It is up to you to post in accordance with the 10 commandments.

So let me re-state what has already been pointed out to you:

1. Either lay off the invective (and anything that might reasonably be construed as such, which includes mangling other posters' names) or take it to Hell.

2. If you want to dispute those instructions, do so in the Styx, not here on the thread.


Failure to comply will attract Admin attention and potentially, a spell of unrequested shore leave.

/hosting
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


The only apparent 'solution' would be to adopt the sort of stance the Salvation Army or the Quakers do - in their very different ways - and brush the whole thing under the carpet.

Ok, ok, I know that Salvationists don't diss or dismiss baptism even though they choose not to practice it and I don't want to start another Salvationists versus everyone else debate ...

And yes, I am fully aware that Salvationists can go and get baptised elsewhere if that's how their conscience moves them.

Not sure what thou meanest Mr G - 'brush it under the carpet'?

Allow me to humbly illuminate my friends here as to the reasoning behind TSA ceasing to practice the Ordinances:

The Christian Mission 9as we were until we changed our title to TSA) celebrated the ordinance of the Lord's Supper (with unfermented wine) and the baptism of infants al la mode of the Methodist churches (especially the New Connexion).

In the early 1880s, again, as with other evangelical Methodists the dominical sacraments were seen as 'lower' than the preaching of the Word and the sacramental life of holiness. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit and entire sanctification was seen to be more significant in the life of the believer than the ordinance of sprinkled water - a ceremony that cannot save.

Why did we cease the practice of both these ordinances? The answer is this - and it is relevant to this discussion: the intransigence of the Bishops and the Clergy in the unity discussions of 1882 (Let the UK Methodists in 2018, in their discussions with Canterbury, take note and beware!)

In 1882 discussions on the merger of The Salvation Army with the Church of England faltered and failed.

1) What would Canterbury do with Methodist minister and Salvation Army General William Booth with no episcopal ordination?
2) What would Canterbury do with the Army's male Captains? Easy, make them Deacons.
3) What would the Bishops do with the female Captains? - Not so easy - they would only be recognised as the lower order of less-than-equal-to-me-Deaconesses.
4) What about the sacrament of the Lord's Supper?

Ah.
The stories are of 1882 being a time when SA congregations would attend the local Parish church for communion; the trouble was that when the time came, vicars were telling the congregations that only Salvationists who were baptised as Anglicans before they were converted and became Salvationists, could come to the altar rail; the rest would have to make their way to 'the Nonconformists down the road.'


In response to all this, Booth decided that, because the sacraments are not necessary in order to be saved; that because TSA(at that time) did not see itself as a church; and because 'we are being divided at the church doors' (in relation to who could receive communion), from now on the Army would cease the practice immediately, mind their own business and go its own way, leaving the church to do whatever it liked.

It seems to me that Canterbury was basically insisting that their view was the correct one and that TSA would have to accept everything Anglican for a merger to tske place.

That was not acceptable.
It seems that history is repeating itself with the proposed unity of the Methodist church in the UK with Canterbury. I can see who will compromise more, who will lose their identity and beliefs more - and it won't be Canterbury.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Tomorrow,Tuesday 13th February, is by chance, this year,.the day that is known by some as 'mardi gras'.It was this same day,13th February 1945,also that year, 'mardi gras'(Fastnacht) that there was the bombing of Dresden.I don't know if the 'planes were Spitfires,some of them were Pathfinder Lancasters. whether there was any 'coup de grace' there,I again don't know. 'Grace' (in French with a circumflex over the 'a') is a word for 'grace' or 'mercy',possibly something to do with 'baptism' either of children or adults.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Yes...
only, Mardi Gras is French for 'fat Tuesday' referring to the using up of all the fat in the house before the privations of Lent.

It has nothing to do with grace.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
I'd like to explore the issue of having the covenant imposed upon infants rather than them being compelled to remain outside it until they are able to understand and choose for themselves.

Either way it would seem that a degree of compulsion is involved. The view that their free will would be violated by God renders them bereft of God's everlasting promise to include them under the terms of the Abrahamic covenant, (which is essentially the covenant of The New Testament (Rom. Chapter 4.) when their parents closed with the covenant by placing their faith in Christ and being baptised. But this would require us to assume that God's everlasting promise was abolished along with the blood sacrifices, temple rituals and human priestly intermediaries.

The theological problem with that view is that it accuses God of breaking His eternal promise to Abraham, Isaac and all future keepers of God's covenant.

It also would require us to regard infants of believers as no different in God's estimation than any other infants born outside the covenant but we know infants born of believing parents are Holy to God. 1 Cor.7:14.

The suggestion that for God to choose whom God wants to place in covenant relationship with Himself violates an infants free will is to misunderstand our situation.

It is not as if we, as sons of Adam have three options regarding salvation.

1. Remain slaves to Satan, under sin and rebellion. With unbelieving parents we are born that way.

2. Continue blissfully unaware of either God's grace or condemnation but with the freedom to choose or reject it.

3. Reject God's grace and be condemned.

Only options 1 and 3 are on offer to us.
God decides who will respond positively to His Gospel. We do not choose Christ, God chooses us to serve His purposes. That is the reason for our salvation and no other.

The only persons God has an obligation to are those who respond by agreeing to the conditions of His gracious offer of a covenant relationship and to the children of those who keep covenant with God. If you know of any other class of human being that God has pledged an eternal promise to I would be interested to read it.

The Gospel invitation is open to ALL and the only condition is faith and a willingness to obediently serve Christ. Only adults, (or sufficiently cognisant persons) are able to respond to it. It is the means of entry for adults into the New Covenant. Each individual must respond on their own behalf if they are physically and mentally able.

Infants of believers are a special case. God undertakes to place them under the same covenant as their believing parent/s until such time as they are able to ‘choose for themselves to remain in it'.

Here in Southampton we had a thriving ship building and repair industry. Skilled craftsmen and shipwrights enrolled their sons in apprenticeships from birth. Apprenticeships were highly sought after and unless one’s name was on the list from birth it was very much more difficult to be accepted for one. There were many sons of shipwrights who did not take up the apprenticeship when they reached the age that was required. They were under no obligation to accept indentures and learn their fathers trade. However they were privileged to be able to reject the opportunity, many who would have accepted it were not on the list because their father was not a qualified shipwright.

My point is this. None of the children of shipwrights considered it a violation of their freedom to chose because they realised it was a greater privilege to have the freedom to reject if they so desired.

Children of the covenant are in exactly the same position. Their heavenly Father will provide them with every incentive to accept His offer of covenant relationship on their own behalf under their own volition, when they are old enough to do so, but if they choose not to hear His voice and harden their hearts, then God’s obligation has been fulfilled, His promise kept and they will not enter into His rest. Heb. 3:8, 3:15, 4:7.

This is the double edged sword of The Gospel, it cuts both ways.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
None of this would be a problem if there was no baptism [Biased]
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
<Social Anthropologist of Religion hat on>Nah we would just create other initiation rites instead and fight over how correctly to apply those<Social Anthropologist of Religion hat off>

Phew! glad to see that part of my brains still working.

Jengie
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Mudfrog] None of this would be a problem if there was no baptism. [Biased]
Ahh, but none of it would be a problem if Eve hadn't taken dietary advice from a talking snake either. [Smile]

Someone had to take on the problem and He/she/it decided that Baptism was a whole lot less painful than circumcision but still signified symbolically the point he wanted to get across to us.

That being sensitive to His Holy Spirit means being as spiritually vulnerable and intellectually incapacitated as one is physically and procreationally incapacitated for some while after a foreskinectomy.

If a sinner has not yet felt uncomfortable about taking that step of faith, then they haven't yet taken that step.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Mudfrog I was trying to point out ,obliquely perhaps ,that the poster who wrote earlier 'coup de gras' might have been better to write 'coup de grace'.Indeed,as you are right to say that' gras' in 'mardi gras' has nothing to do with grace,whereas 'grace' with a circumflex above the a does.
I'm sure that baptism is a moment of grace.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
I'm sure that baptism is a moment of grace.
Yup! but also a moment of death. Coup de grâce: a finishing blow to put out of pain, a sudden vigorous attack.

It is supposed to put us out of our misery and start again on a better footing.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
Oh, and there would not have been spitfires, they didn't have the range. Mustangs perhaps though, with wing tanks. But it was a night raid and mustangs only usually flew in daylight. Mosquitoes were used as pathfinders and flare droppers though. They would have been there, and many Lancs.

[ 12. February 2018, 19:30: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
As EFF has reminded us on another thread this is the first time since 1945 that Ash Wednesday has been on the 14th February.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I did stipulate, Mudfrog, that I didn't want to initiate another Salvationists versus the rest debate.

Nor was I defending the 1880s treatment of the Salvationists by the Anglican establishment.

The Salvationist position on baptism doesn't make the 'problem' go away. Had the CofE been credo-baptist then a different set of problems would have arisen.

The only way of dealing with it, short of removing all references to baptism from the NT would be for everyone to become Salvationists and that ain't going to happen anytime soon.

For some reason it seems ok for the SA to maintain its principled position on the issue but not for the CofE to maintain its equally principled but different position.

I wonder why that is?

On the issue of Methodist and Anglican reunification. That's foundered on two occasions to my knowledge and not just because Anglo-Catholics were squeamish about Methodist orders. Some of the more reformed evangelical types within the CofE were also opposed. They didn't want those nasty liberal Methodists queering their pitch.

I don't know how to resolve the issues and controversies about baptism but not bothering with it at all doesn't strike me as much of a solution.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
It also would require us to regard infants of believers as no different in God's estimation than any other infants born outside the covenant but we know infants born of believing parents are Holy to God. 1 Cor.7:14.

God's everlasting covenant is with his people, OT and NT.

God's people, under the NT revelation, are those who trust and obey him, which a baby by definition cannot do.

God "does not show favoritism" (Acts 10:34), and loves the children of non-Christians in exactly the same way as he loves the children of Christians.

Whatever I Cor.7:14 means, it no more teaches that the children of believers are automatically "Holy to God", than it teaches that a Christian's spouse who displays every conceivable sub-Christian and anti-Christian characteristic is to be regarded, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, to be "Holy to God".
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
In infant baptism and its Biblical justification we are not dealing with the milk of the Gospel or elementary doctrines.

As regards the christening of babies, we are dealing with something which is neither implied nor explicitly taught in anything which Hebrews says about the covenant.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, but is something the Church seems to have practiced from a relatively early date, alongside credobaptism for adult converts - following a far lengthier period of catechesis that applies anywhere today.

As an evangelical you are, of course, going with the assumption that something had to be explicitly stated in scripture before it is accepted. That wasn't an assumption the early Christians made. You can't claim that they did without redacting post-Reformation ideas anachronistically into the early centuries of Christianity.

One of the reasons, it seems to me, that there have been some sparks flying on this thread is that both our reformed Anglican friend and yourself are reading post-Reformation ideas and developments back into a first and second century context and reaching opposite conclusions.

The Covenantal approach is a very 16th century one. So is the radical reformation emphasis on individual and personal faith. I'm not saying that neither of those concepts or concerns existed prior to the 16th century, but that the earliest generations of Christians thought in somewhat different terms.

Expecting to have chapter and verse to back up every single aspect is very much a post-Reformation concern.

Besides, as has been said before, by the time the canon of scripture was agreed the various churches were already baptising babies and had been doing so for some time.

Also, it's interesting that those Christians outside the boundaries or on the fringe of the Roman Empire also practised paedopbaptism. It seems to have become universal by the 3rd and 4th centuries and can't be blamed on Constantine. What can be blamed on Constantine is its rather indiscriminate application.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I wasn't trying to rerun TSA v The Church argument again, I was simply showing that in merger talks, the one side (Canterbury) was immovable in its view on apostolic succession, ordination, sacraments, etc.

That seemed to be the overall theme of the thread in recent days - is there one view and if there is, it must be mine.

What people don't realise is that TSA is not against sacraments, we just don't practice them. I have no particular view, for example, on which form of baptism is correct though if pushed I would lean on infant baptism rather than believers' baptism. That's because of my Wesleyan heritage and the fact that we did baptise babies.

Someone said to me once that TSA would make a good Catholic Order. I quite like that. Maybe Canterbury should have accepted us as an Order of the Church of England, allowing us our freedom to have our own identity and mission under the Anglican umbrella.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:


Someone said to me once that TSA would make a good Catholic Order. I quite like that. Maybe Canterbury should have accepted us as an Order of the Church of England, allowing us our freedom to have our own identity and mission under the Anglican umbrella.

Or maybe we should stop fighting the battles of the past. Out of the mess created by the Anglican-Booth battle grew the Church Army, which in my experience is a worthy institution - and is a kind of Order within the Church of England with an identity and mission.

Booth and the Salvation Army (as it became) walked away when the Anglican structure wouldn't budge. Carlile and the Church Army remained at the edges of the Anglican structure and quietly got on with it.

125 years later, the Church Army and Salvation Army are quite different, and fair enough too. The Salvation Army has developed their own ideas about issues like baptism whereas the Church Army never really worried too much about it and let others in the Church of England get on with deciding the theology whilst they got on with the other stuff.

What else is there to say?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:


125 years later, the Church Army and Salvation Army are quite different, and fair enough too. The Salvation Army has developed their own ideas about issues like baptism whereas the Church Army never really worried too much about it and let others in the Church of England get on with deciding the theology whilst they got on with the other stuff.

I'm not sure what you meant by "developed their own ideas about issues like baptism". AIUI, the SA takes the approach that administration of sacraments is not a matter for it, but for more traditional churches. So local SA members will come to St Sanity for baptism, the Eucharist, even marriage, and are perfectly welcome to do so. The same happens throughout Aust. Is it different in the UK?


I can't speak for other States, but the Church Army had largely died out in NSW by WW II, and is now unknown here.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Not a great deal.

It's one of those 'what-ifs?'

Had the Salvation Army become some kind of order within the Anglican communion I'm sure it would have pursued that particular vocation admirably.

Is the Salvation Army better off operating outside the CofE or the other historic Churches and the denominations whilst remaining true to its Wesleyan roots?

I don't know.

One could argue that the institutional nature of the CofE could have stifled or blunted it to some extent.

Or else we could argue that it could have helped the wider CofE maintain a sense of mission ...

Who knows? It didn't happen. We are where we are.

What if Luther and Melancthon had turned East and joined the Orthodox?

What if The Great Schism hadn't happened in 1054. What if the Council of Florence had prevailed and East and West been reconciled and reunited at that point?

What if the Restoration of the Monarchy hadn't happened in 1660 and Presbyterians and Independents continued to hold sway?

What if Calvin had become an Anabaptist?

What if? What if? What if?
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
You wrote:
quote:
God's everlasting covenant is with his people, OT and NT.
True, but how is that covenant expressed and what is the extent of its promise?

There is no revised statement of the terms and conditions of The Abrahamic Covenant in New Testament scripture because it was so well known and accepted that it did not need explanation to any converting Jew. Rom. Chapter 4 again.

The oath made by God to Abraham concerning Isaac, Abraham's yet unborn infant was that he, Isaac would be covered by the self same covenant as was Abraham, his believing father. Not only with Isaac though but FOR all his descendants after him.

"I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him". Gen.17:19.

quote:
Be ye mindful always of his covenant;
the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham,
and of his oath unto Isaac; 1 Ch.16:15-16.

He hath remembered his covenant for ever,
the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
Which covenant he made with Abraham,
and his oath unto Isaac; Psa.105:8-9.

There is Old Testament record therefore of the fact that God swore an oath to an unborn infant, which God has not yet broken nor ever will. The precedent principle that God can do it and has done it, is therefore established.

Search as you may for an instance anywhere in scripture OT or NT where God swears an oath to the adult, cognisant, decision-making, mature, grown up Isaac, and you will not find one. The Oath was only sworn to Abraham on behalf of Isaac.

Notice though that God makes a solemn promise of covenant to Isaac, an unborn infant, but only undertakes only to make provision for his descendants to have that same covenant available to them. "WITH Isaac", but "FOR his descendants after him".

And who are Isaac's and Abraham's true descendants?

According to St Paul they are these:
quote:
Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of all that believe.
Clearly Isaac, who was not even yet conceived when God gave His oath to Abraham, must have had faith, because he is declared by scripture to have benefited from God's oath when he finally was born and became an adult.

quote:
It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. Rom.9:6-8.
Furthermore: whether God in his omniscience chooses to pledge oaths to human offspring is entirely His own affair. God may be impartial but from a human perspective He definitely has favorites.

quote:
—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” Rom.9:11b-15.

And yet you declare that God does not have favourites. You are missing something somewhere.

If infants of believers are covered by the same provision of God's Grace as their parents, as OT scripture bids us believe and as NT scripture does not rescind, there is no reason for us not to believe that our children are Holy to God, especially since the NT says so. Also the extension of God's covenant grace to the infants and children of believers has nothing to do with their ability to trust and obey. As St Paul rightly observes:

quote:
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Rom.9:16.
You wrote:
quote:
God's people, under the NT revelation, are those who trust and obey him, which a baby by definition cannot do.
By your definition, as a Baptist, not by God's as The Almighty.

So you seem to be saying that your 'trust in and obedience to God' are what guarantee to you, God's Grace. You have the cart before the horse, and the poor horse is trying to push a loaded cart uphill, backwards.

We are FIRST recipients of God's Grace, (while we are still yet sinners, Rom.5:8), just as infants of believers are recipients of God's covenant grace as promised to their believing parents, (before they, as infants, are even able to sin).

That is where the OT Israel went wrong. They turned a covenant of faith, (The oath of God to Abraham and Isaac and their descendants), who through faith were counted righteous, into a covenant of works whereby obedience to The Law was seen as their entitlement to salvation and providence by God. Their works failed them miserably but there were many whose faith saved them spectacularly as is related in Heb. Chapter 11.

quote:
By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff. By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his bones.
By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king's edict. By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them.
By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.
And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.Heb. Chapter 11.

You wrote:
quote:
Whatever I Cor.7:14 means, it no more teaches that the children of believers are automatically "Holy to God", than it teaches that a Christian's spouse who displays every conceivable sub-Christian and anti-Christian characteristic is to be regarded, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, to be "Holy to God".
Well at least you seem to know what it does not mean to be Holy to God, but you still do not have any understanding of what it does mean. Especially since St Paul draws a definite distinction between the children of believing parents and those of unbelieving ones, namely that the children of unbelieving parents are 'unclean'. You need to be able to explain what Paul means by that before you start teaching me what Holy to God might mean.

you wrote:
quote:
As regards the christening of babies, we are dealing with something which is neither implied nor explicitly taught in anything which Hebrews says about the covenant.
You seem to have ignored the fact that Hebrews is a book which is almost entirely concentrating on The Covenant as it is enacted from both OT and NT perspectives. It explains and describes what has been abolished and what has been added but not what had been retained, that is taken for granted. It states that the New is better than the Old and nowhere does it even imply that God has broken His Oath to include the unborn infants of believers in His Covenant with their parents, as God promised to Abram and his seed for ever. This was ALWAYS a promise of The Covenant of FAITH and it is supremely a promise to believing parents that is apprehended only by faith. This is what Baptists, as a denomination, almost uniquely seem to lack, regarding God's ability or determination to keep His promises, clearly stated in OT scripture.

If not one jot or tittle have been erased from The Law, then how much more is the Covenant of Faith God made with Abraham and extended in the New Testament to the Gentiles, confirmed by St Paul and the writer to The Hebrews, then how much more shall not a single promise and oath made by Almighty God, who keeps all his promises for ever, not be erased from the Everlasting Covenant.

I'm getting tired of explaining all this to you only to get back "Babies are too thick to receive promises from God", "Babies are not mentioned in the New Testament" or such like nonsense. Why don't you get a good book on Covenant Theology and study it properly for yourself?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
AIUI, the SA takes the approach that administration of sacraments is not a matter for it, but for more traditional churches. So local SA members will come to St Sanity for baptism, the Eucharist, even marriage, and are perfectly welcome to do so. The same happens throughout Aust. Is it different in the UK?

I refer you to Mudfrog's posts, in particular the one(s) I was replying to. He says that issues like baptism were a stumbling block for SA-Anglican unity talks, which I think is largely true.

quote:

I can't speak for other States, but the Church Army had largely died out in NSW by WW II, and is now unknown here.

I'm not an expert on the Church Army, but I understand it is more extensive in some parts and countries than others. Much like the Mothers Union and other Anglican "orders" of the kind we are discussing.

The Salvation Army clearly is bigger than the Church Army overall and do different things, in the UK at least. It's not a competition, I only introduced it into discussion because they have very similar roots and Mudfrog was talking about what might have happened if SA-Anglican unity talks had gone differently.

[ 13. February 2018, 12:47: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I'm still agreeing with Gamaliel. Just saying. [Smile]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And I'm afraid, the more I've read on the more I'm agreeing with what I wrote earlier ...
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[ Gamaliel] As an evangelical you are, of course, going with the assumption that something had to be explicitly stated in scripture before it is accepted. That wasn't an assumption the early Christians made.
Indeed Jewish Christians had no immediate guidance on the issue apart from Apostolic advice. The New Testament had not yet been written. All that existed until 10-20 years after Pentecost were correspondence between Paul and his churches.

In view of the fact that Jews already had a very clear understanding that their male infants at the very least were born under covenant and needed to be circumcised at 8 days old according to the law, it is surprising indeed that there is no restriction forbidding the practice. Uncircumcised gentiles didn't come into the picture either until about the time of the break up of the Jerusalem Church.

Instead we have Paul making it widely known that the circumcised should not seek to be uncircumcised, (how ever that might have worked in practice), and the uncircumcised should not seek to be circumcised, (1 Cor.7:18), and that baptism is all that is necessary as the symbolism of entry into the New Covenant whether circumcised or uncircumcised. Rom.6:4, Eph.4:5, Col.2:12,

Surely we should expect a clear prohibition forbidding the circumcision,(and by extension, baptism), of infants by Apostolic authority if it was as anathema as Baptists would have us believe.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There are a range of views among Baptists, of course and not all of them would regard paedopbaptism as 'anathema'. They might regard it as less than ideal but they wouldn't consider paedo-baptist to he beyond the pale.

Let's keep things in proportion and in perspective.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Let's keep things in proportion and in perspective.
Ok with that myself. I have Baptist friends of very long standing who have no problem with it all. Nor I with them. They just think its a bit quirky and C-of-e-ish but not actually a hot stake and faggots issue. [Mad]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
One aspect of baptism or re-baptism that has not yet been mentioned is the fact that baptism is a witness and a symbolic demonstration of God's Grace in accepting sinful human beings into fellowship with Himself.

Quite apart from its relevance to the individual person involved, it is a public demonstration of God's Grace to the onlookers as well.

It is a visible, sacramental, revelation of The Gospel in action and as such builds up the faith of The Church and can draw nearer any serious seeker of God not yet fully committed.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Indeed Jewish Christians had no immediate guidance on the issue apart from Apostolic advice.

A reference to the apostles' authority as "advice" is on a par with a description of the Decalogue as "The Ten Suggestions".

I believe in "one holy catholic and apostolic church".
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I'm getting tired of explaining all this to you

And all to no avail - you must be exhausted!

Your "explanation" still doesn't (and never will) cope with the obstinate complete absence of any mention of paedobaptism in the NT.

Nor is it compatible with God's universal love for all children, of Christians and non-Christians; and does not explain how a child born into a Christian family who rejects the gospel, is any conceivable manner better off than someone born into a non-Christian family who accepts the gospel (and thereby instantly really does come under the covenant).

Nor, on the assumption (based on your posts) that you are a Calvinist (apologies if you are not), what possible relevance being born as a baby of Christians into the covenant can involve, given that the baby is either one of the elect (and automatically saved) or one of the reprobate (and automatically damned); in the case of the former it is no help, and in the case of the latter it is of no benefit.

Nor why Calvinists (such as the Particular Baptists, and Charles Spurgeon, to quote historical instances) can be credopbaptists (and while we are talking history, why paedobaptism has been such a hot potato in the CofE at least as far back as the mid-C19 Gorham Case.

quote:
Why don't you get a good book on Covenant Theology and study it properly for yourself?
Because I am already quite familiar with your sort of covenant theology, having been exposed to it many years ago, and having then seen through it and moved on.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There are a range of views among Baptists, of course and not all of them would regard paedopbaptism as 'anathema'.

I'm one of them. The only thing I' add is that please don't try to tell me that anyone's system for baptism is better than any other. It isn't. The more you argue either side, the more it sounds awfully like a badge that must be worn to be saved.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Caplan] A reference to the apostles' authority as "advice" is on a par with a description of the Decalogue as "The Ten Suggestions".

I believe in "one holy catholic and apostolic church".

So you see New Testament leadership of Christ's Church as the imposition of New Law, dictated by Apostles then do you?

The only New Commandment in the New Testament is "Love one another as I [Jesus] have loved you."

Perhaps you would like to add the commandment, "Thou shalt not baptise your infants because I have forbidden them entry into my rest until they can obey commandments, because I am no longer keeping my promise to Abraham and his seed for ever".

But you then say you believe in God's Grace.

How can you ever sing the Magnificat without feeling hypocritical. All that was spoken of Jesus concerning the covenant here was spoken of Him when He was an infant 8 days old. Luke 1:55, Luke 1:68-79. particularly (72-74).

Yes, the Apostles spoke with authority, but it was all good advice, not handed down on tablets of stone enforced by threats of eternal damnation.

I too am a member of one holy catholic and apostolic church. That is why I consider their doctrine on the covenant to be binding on the church. Why do you suppose Paul and the writer of Hebrews banged on so much about The Everlasting Covenant. Obviously because it must be EVERLASTING surely. The covenant addendum of The Law, attached to the eternal covenant under Moses, is the only part of the eternal covenant that was ever abolished. The covenant with Abraham continues everlastingly through both Old and New Testaments, unbroken. It is the sole basis for salvation for both Jew and Gentile, male and female alike.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
RdrEmCofE

There is no need to repeat yourself. Particularly since you are getting tired of this.

I am closing this thread temporarily. We need to consider its continuing value as a vehicle for serious discussion. Hosts and Admin also need to review the need for disciplinary action in the light of posts since the previous warnings.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thread re-opened for serious discussion. We'll give it another chance.

Since it looks like there will be a Styx thread, I'll refrain from further comment for now.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Thread re-opened for serious discussion. We'll give it another chance.
Thank you Barnabus62. And it is indeed a serious discussion since The Covenant is the very glue which holds all other Christian Theology of Salvation together and baptism is the point at which that covenant is physically expressed as a sacrament. [A visible and tangible outward sign of an invisible, intangible, inward Grace.]

quote:
[Caplan] Nor is it compatible with God's universal love for all children, of Christians and non-Christians; and does not explain how a child born into a Christian family who rejects the gospel, is any conceivable manner better off than someone born into a non-Christian family who accepts the gospel (and thereby instantly really does come under the covenant).
If I am to tackle the objections you raise, with the care and seriousness that they deserve, my reply will need to be extensive and quote much scripture. I hope you will patiently endure a rather long repost.

Since Christ is the fulfilment of the covenant, (Luke 1:72-75), the promised Mediator of the covenant, (Is. 49:8), He is "the messenger of the covenant" who was expected in faith (Mal. 3:1), He is confessed in NT scripture as The Mediator of the covenant, (Heb. 8:6, 9:15,12:24), He is the Guarantor of the covenant (Heb. 7:22), He introduces His own into the covenant, (Rom.5:2), Christ himself described His blood shed for the remission of sins as "the blood of the covenant", (Mt.26:28, Mk. 14:24, Lk. 22:20, 1 Cor.9:25), (I have already explained how 'New' should be understood in the last two verses). It is by the blood of the everlasting covenant that Christ has become "the great shepherd of the sheep" (Heb.13:20); and His resurrection from the dead took place in virtue of the promise of the covenant, (Acts 13:32 f.).

There is nothing NEW in the character, behaviour or nature of Christ in the NEW Testament that is not absolutely true of also The Old Testament and Christ is the unifying factor of BOTH. Jn. 5:39, Lk. 24:44-45.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Heb.13:8.

God's universal love for all children, of Old Testament Jews and non-Jews, and New Testament Christians and non-Christians should presumably, according to your reasoning be easily confirmed in both Old Testament and New. However, if that is so obviously the case, why were Jews punished by God for covenant breaking and Gentiles were not? Was that favouritism for the Gentiles?

Why were the infants and children of Israelite covenant keepers included in God's covenant with their parents but the children of Gentiles were not? Indeed Gentiles were not at that time in the covenant at all, not being descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Favouritism for the Israelites this time perhaps?

Why Jesus came only for "The lost sheep of the house of Israel" and not, at that time, for every nation on earth. Favouritism for The Jews perhaps?

quote:
Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt.10:6.
quote:
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt.15:23-24.
Have Jesus and God suddenly changed from being "the same yesterday, today and forever."

For certain God is gracious to all infants and children, but God, through the words of St. Paul, declares the infants of New Covenant believers, "Holy", in contrast to the infants of unbelievers, whom St. Paul, implies are "Unclean" (simply an expression describing the fact thay they are outside the covenant. How do you explain that, unless there is indeed an identifiable difference between them, as far as God is concerned.

quote:
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: Eph.2:11-12.
quote:
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
quote:
no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Eph.5:5-6.
Clearly you no doubt agree we are graciously saved from 'something' and for 'something'. What you have not shown me is a single reason to believe that as covenant keeping believers, there is any scriptural reason to believe that for some time between the birth of our infants and them: Quote: "accepting the gospel (and thereby instantly really coming under the covenant)", that they ever at any time, come under the wrath of God.

If our infants are not included under the New Covenant as they were under The Old then, infants/children/adults/old age pensioners are then: "outside the covenant' and therefore under the wrath of God, they being children of disobedience, having not yet knowingly declared themselves FOR Christ. Christ himself said "You cannot serve two masters". In the world we serve the interests of either God or Satan. There is no other option.

You have, by imposing this theoretical 'Time Gap' between birth and conversion for the children of believers, passed into another theological world than that of the Apostolic Church.

In this new un-apostolic world - to cite a few facts, without wishing to paint too black a picture - the children of believers are no longer heirs to the promises, indeed, they are no longer in the covenant, since it no longer exists for them; they are no longer in the Church which cannot embrace them because of their unconscious state; the family is spiritually and organically disintegrated and disrupted; the infant, removed from his/her setting and from the collectives, albeit divinely instituted, of which he/she forms a part, and separated from his/her own, is placed alone in the presence of God who acts only towards him or her and for him or her. It is desired to bestow upon the children of believers a dangerous and imaginary liberty which they will misuse. The Church becomes a society of adults to which our children are admitted as proselytes at the time when each on his/her own believes and is converted and sanctified.

To quieten the fears of believing parents for the danger of exclusion of their children by God, through their children's inevitable failure to immediately confess their sinful state, (whenever God deems that to have taken place), and thereupon take advantage of God's abundant grace through confession and baptism, Baptists have concocted their own ceremony called "dedication" or "blessing" of which there is not the slightest trace in the New Testament. Neither is there the slightest trace of cases of believer's children being baptised when, and only when they reach a sufficiently cognisant adult age.

This is not a happy picture of the community of the Church but it would be factually an accurate one if believers are left in the position of being unable to find scriptural justification for believing their infants are acceptable to God, by covenant promise.

So what should we make of the fact that there is not a single instance in the New Testament of an adult who has believing parents being baptised after reaching adulthood. If as you suggest only adults could receive baptism is it not strange that neither The Acts of The Apostles nor any other book of the New Testament provides either a single example nor does it ever state the requirement of the children of believers to wait until adulthood before baptism would be permissible.

How is an argument purely resting on lack of New Testament examples seen as an irrefutable scripture supporting argument for not allowing infants to be baptised yet when the same argument of paucity of examples of adult baptism of children of believers is put forward it is discounted as irrelevant by those who oppose paedo-baptism?

So it seems that the non-believing cognisant children of Baptist parents, (according to this new theology), are considered in need of 'Salvation' just as are the unbelieving cognisant children of unbelievers. All very equitable I'm sure but not what God says to the parents of believers and keepers of His covenants both Old and New.

There are very clear advantages extended by God, over and above prevenient grace, to the infants and non-cognisant children of believers.

Let us be careful here though! The baptism of infants is not administered by reason of faith of the parents or of their sponsors nor of the confession of faith of the church or congregation. It is the covenant which is the sole basis of baptism. It is not a matter of faith by substitution, neither is faith or righteousness imputed by the performance of a ceremony. It is entirely in obedience to the divine command according to the covenant conditions that infants of parents declaring faith in God's covenant with either one or both of them, should receive the sign and seal of that covenant for their infant, which is, the scripturally instituted rite of baptism, previously circumcision.

A child born into such a Christian family, is in the privileged position of being regarded by God as 'Holy', that is, already set apart for God's purposes, by virtue of the fact that the infant is already covenant bound and covenant protected, but not yet fully cognitively regenerate.

When a proselyte is introduced through baptism into the communion of the Church it is necessary that he or she, himself or herself should have heard the Word exhorting him or her to conversion, to faith, and to repentance. But what is the promise that is given to him or her and sealed by his or her baptism? "I will be your God and the God of your children after you."

The promise of salvation is not given to him or her for his or her self alone, but also for his or her children.

quote:
And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Jer.32:38-40
quote:
For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your heart, as in the provocation,
and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: Ps. 95:7-8. Heb.3:8.

Is this then the everlasting covenant we read of in Hebrews chapter 13:20? It most certainly must be. I know of no other everlasting covenant. If you do, perhaps you can show me where it is spoken of in scripture. I am willing to learn of it if you can provide the references.

quote:
[Caplan] Nor, on the assumption (based on your posts) that you are a Calvinist (apologies if you are not), what possible relevance being born as a baby of Christians into the covenant can involve, given that the baby is either one of the elect (and automatically saved) or one of the reprobate (and automatically damned); in the case of the former it is no help, and in the case of the latter it is of no benefit.
Actually I am an Anglican, not a Calvinist, but even so I require no apology. I do not believe in either predestination or free will as an either or concept. To have to choose one or the other assumes that we know more about God The Eternal being, than is possible for any human being to ever know. Both theories can be supposedly supported by scripture equally effectively. Both are probably only part of the true picture, which we will only see in proper perspective when we view things from the exulted parapets of the New Jerusalem in The World following this one.

quote:
[Caplan] (and while we are talking history, why paedobaptism has been such a hot potato in the CofE at least as far back as the mid-C19 Gorham Case.
Gorham's views on baptism had caused comment, particularly his contention that by baptism infants do not become members of Christ and the children of God. He was obviously wrong, because one cannot BE a member of the Church unless one is in Christ. The little children who Christ bid come to him were covenant covered children of the house of Israel, Gorham obviously did not study his Bible sufficiently, nor understand how the covenant affects infants.

But Gorham's view was also that baptismal regeneration was conditional and dependent upon a later personal adoption of promises made.

I find myself actually in agreement with him on this specific point but his idea of what is meant by regeneration would differ from mine. To be fully 'regenerate' involves full acceptance of God's authority, full understanding of Christ's unearned and imputed righteousness, full acceptance of the discipline involved in the lifelong process of Sanctification by The Holy Spirit. There are many adults that never ever get all the way there it might seem.

All of these awarenesses grow slowly from infancy, through childhood, into adulthood, and all overseen by God Himself in the spirit of the child of covenanted believers. (Even the children of Baptists, who unfortunately give God no thanks or credit for it, because they don't believe it happens). And also of course in every individual adult who God in his Gracious Mercy decides to draw to himself to be added to Christ's Church and thereby receive covenant promises to both themselves and their children, if they have any.

The bishop found Gorham's view of baptism to be Calvinistic, making him unsuitable for the post. The Church of England is not Calvinistic. It does not denigrate all Calvinist doctrine, but it does not espouse all Calvinist doctrine either. I can understand however why the Bishop was unhappy with Revd. Gorham if he was a double predestinist. The CofE don't hold to it.

There are other ways of looking at the promises of God besides resorting to either predestination or imagined, uninfluenced, independent, autonomous individual choice.

"Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations". Deut.7:9.

How is this possible if each individual adult in each generation has to choose to become a believer before they can be saved.

It would be possible however if God has promised to "draw to Himself", (Jn.6:44) each successive generation of those who keep his covenant and love Him by keeping His commandments.

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day". Even Jesus recognised this fundamental fact of the Father's covenant role in bringing us each to an understanding of His saving grace. God IS the only Saviour. (Isa. 45:21).

By my estimation 1000 generations is about 20 thousand years, which I think all theologians will agree, takes us well into the New Testament Dispensation from the time this promise was first relayed to his generation, by Moses.

Under the terms of the New Covenant, the better covenant, God draws to himself even those who previously were "strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world". Eph.2:12. They of course will need to respond as adults with understanding, then repent and be baptised. But their infants and children enter the covenant along with them, they and all else that rightly belonged to this new initiate into the Church, belong to God and though they themselves must agree to God's terms of remaining in His covenant, God will see to it that they are drawn to Him and given every opportunity to "seek after Him and find Him for themselves".

I apologize beforehand to anyone who found this 'Preachy' or see it as 'a lesson in sucking eggs'. As a retired preacher used to homiletic exposition, I find it hard to get out of the habit. For that matter, at 72 with the arthritis I find it hard to get out of my trousers or get my socks off too. [Smile]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Somewhat stunned! I recognise the effort that went into that post, but it really is far too long. We do have this Purgatorial Guideline 6, which actually gives me authority to delete preachy posts, but I'll take advice back stage before doing that.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Dear Lord, save us from sermons like this....

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
Mine are not usually like that. Would you like one of my better ones? [Devil]

[ 16. February 2018, 18:12: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No.

Thank you.

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Consistent with the decision to reopen the thread, the very long post by RdrEmCofE stays in place for comments by Shipmates.

If anyone feels the need for clarification of any of the Hostly rulings in this thread, or would like further clarification re Purgatory Guideline 6, please feel free to voice your concerns in either the Styx thread which RdrEmCofE opened, or a separate one.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Are we going to be called to come up out of our seats and kneel at the sinners' bench?
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Are we going to be called to come up out of our seats and kneel at the sinners' bench?
That can be done alone in private, just us and God, if we are beginning to feel it a matter of urgency. Mat. 6:6.

There is no other Jesus recommended way to come close to a Holy and Righteous God.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Why Jesus came only for "The lost sheep of the house of Israel" and not, at that time, for every nation on earth. Favouritism for The Jews perhaps?

You have again trapped yourself in selective proof-texting.

The NT is full of passages proclaiming that "the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" - Jew, Gentile, everyone who accepts the free gift.

quote:
For certain God is gracious to all infants and children, but God, through the words of St. Paul, declares the infants of New Covenant believers, "Holy", in contrast to the infants of unbelievers, whom St. Paul, implies are "Unclean" (simply an expression describing the fact thay they are outside the covenant.
I have already shown that I Cor.7:14 no more "proves" that children of one Christian parent are under the covenant than it "proves" that the obviously unregenerate spouse of a Christian is under the covenant.

quote:
What you have not shown me is a single reason to believe that as covenant keeping believers, there is any scriptural reason to believe that for some time between the birth of our infants and them: Quote: "accepting the gospel (and thereby instantly really coming under the covenant)", that they ever at any time, come under the wrath of God.
Infants of both Christians and non-Christians are safe should they die while they are babies and small children, and infants of both Christians and non-Christians are sinners who need to repent and believe after the age of accountability - which is known only to God.

quote:
of which there is not the slightest trace in the New Testament.
Now you are talking about paedobaptism.

quote:
So it seems that the non-believing cognisant children of Baptist parents, (according to this new theology), are considered in need of 'Salvation' just as are the unbelieving cognisant children of unbelievers.
After the age of accountability, precisely.

And there is nothing "new" about it, apart from its being "New" Testament doctrine.

quote:
[QB[ The little children who Christ bid come to him were covenant covered children of the house of Israel[/QB]
Christ - the whole NT - bids all children, and adults, Jew and Gentile, come to him.

quote:
Even the children of Baptists, who unfortunately give God no thanks or credit for it, because they don't believe it happens.
Credobaptists thank the God who, Peter taught, "does not show favoritism", for providing salvation for all people, and on exactly the same conditions.

quote:
at 72 with the arthritis I find it hard to get out of my trousers or get my socks off too.
At not too many years off your age myself, I am finding it increasingly hard to remember what to do once my trousers are off.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Caplan] At not too many years off your age myself, I am finding it increasingly hard to remember what to do once my trousers are off.
Notwithstanding, (and I sometimes find that problematic too [Frown] ), you seem to have retained a sense of humour. Let's continue our discussion somewhat less confrontationally. That will not only please the Admin bods but also help establish some areas of mutual agreement.

quote:
The NT is full of passages proclaiming that "the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" - Jew, Gentile, everyone who accepts the free gift.
I had stated earlier that The Gospel is for all nations. It is clearly outlined in OT scripture that God intended at its inception that the covenant would be eventually extended to include all people.

"And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." Gen.22:18, 26:4, Ps.72:17

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Gal.3:8-9.

The Gospel however can only be understood by cognisant adults, whatever nation, race, creed or ethnicity. However once they hear and receive the Gospel thankfully, the promise is to them the same as it was to Abraham, "I will be your God and the God of your children also".

They will however need to keep the conditions of the covenant, one of which is to teach their children the moral law and develop a respect for God's Authority, (i.e. fear The Lord).

"When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it." Deu.31:11-13.

"And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." Deut. 6:7, 11:19.

Incidentally the Christian Church originally called themselves Followers of or in The Way, and Jesus claimed Himself to be that very same WAY. I like to think this is where he got the idea of personifying Himself as the WAY in which every parent would eventually teach their children.

"What man is he that feareth the Lord?
him shall He teach in the way that he shall choose." Ps.25:12.

quote:
I have already shown that I Cor.7:14 no more "proves" that children of one Christian parent are under the covenant than it "proves" that the obviously unregenerate spouse of a Christian is under the covenant.
Yes and of course I agree that this verse is no proof positive that the children of believers are 'regenerate', but it does clearly and irrefutably state that they are Holy and that by comparison the children of unbelievers are not. The comparison is merely confirmation, (as far as the Apostle Paul was concerned), that a marriage between a Christian woman and a Pagan man did not place the offspring of such a union outside the covenant and therefore unclean. Paul's reasoning placed the FAITH of the mother over and above any idea of male headship of a pagan father in a mixed faith family. The man was at that time generally held to be responsible to God for the conduct of his whole family. Hence when the head of the family was converted and baptised, the whole family would be baptised as demonstration of their allegiance to his example and leadership responsibility, under God.

quote:
Infants of both Christians and non-Christians are safe should they die while they are babies and small children, and infants of both Christians and non-Christians are sinners who need to repent and believe after the age of accountability - which is known only to God.
This supposition introduces an element of insecurity for both believing parents and unbelieving parents, that their children, once God has deemed them accountable will inevitably come under God's wrath and are not safe from fear of retribution until they repent and respond positively to The Gospel. For believing parents this is a matter of much importance because they are very aware of God's grace and are rightly in fear of His wrath. (see Job. 1:1-5). With unbelieving parents it may not matter in the least. They are somnolently unaware
[Snore] .

God has promised everlastingly that this period of insecurity will not exist for any parents who keep God's covenant with them, until such time as their children either take up their covenant responsibilities for themselves, by willingly aligning themselves with His purposes for them, or reject God's oversight of their lives, break covenant with Him and go their own stiff necked adult way ignoring His guidance and advice.

The saddest thing to witness is some down and out drunk, druggie or criminal reprobate coming to the sinners bench in later life, in a Hot Gospel traveling show, after a lifetime of denying God's attempts to shepherd him into the right WAY, FINALLY allowing himself to be bourn home on the shoulders of The Good Shepherd who has risked the rest of his flock just to rescue a renegade child of the covenant after a lifetime of abusing the gift that was within him.

quote:
After the age of accountability, precisely. And there is nothing "new" about it, apart from its being "New" Testament doctrine.
Pray, where do we find the New Testament doctrine stating unequivocally that the children of believers must wait until adulthood before baptism will be permitted for them?

quote:
Christ - the whole NT - bids all children, and adults, Jew and Gentile, come to him.
That was not what I intended you to take away from the example I quoted. I in no way disagree that Christ invites ALL children to come unto Him. ALL children come under the prevenient grace of God from birth, in fact from conception, throughout even their being knitted together in the womb.

The example of the Children Christ bid come to Him were ALL covenant covered children, there were no gentiles, (excluded at that time from the Old Covenant), among them. Had there been it would have been such a noteworthy event that it could not possibly have escaped mention when the incident was later related in scripture.

However "The wicked are estranged from the womb:
they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Ps.58:3. might give the parents of the Cray twins, Myra Hindly or Adolf Hitler et. al. pause for thought.

quote:
Credobaptists thank the God who, Peter taught, "does not show favoritism", for providing salvation for all people, and on exactly the same conditions.
God truly, is said in scripture to not show favouritism. But what does this mean in terms of the special provisions God has made in the covenant for the children of believers?

Ex.23:3 tells us that we must not favour the poor person in a law suit. But that does not mean we should be equally generous to the poor who have need of our support as to the rich who do not require it.

Acts 10:34 Peter is quite specific in what he means by God's impartiality. "God accepts from every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right".

According to the reasoning which says babies can't choose, so they can't be saved, so they cant be baptised, it also would presumably follow that they also can't fear God or do what is right. So God's supposed impartiality to infants is not supported by this verse, is it.

Rom.2:9-11. According to St Paul, "There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism."

Clearly again God's equanimity extends only as far as treating all nations equally under judgment. He certainly discriminates between those who do evil and those who do good though. So this verse also does not support the contention that ALL babies and children regardless and unconditionally are beyond God's censure until they hear and accept The Gospel.

Col,3:25 says, "Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism." Anyone presumably means children as well was adults. When did the murders of Jamie Bulger come under the wrath of God? Before the age of twelve I imagine.

Whatever might be said in criticism of God's right to be especially gracious to the infants and children of believers, as opposed to the children of unbelieving parents, it can never negate God's inalienable right to be especially gracious to whom ever He pleases, without his impartiality being called into question by accusations of favoritism.

"Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy." Ex.33:18-19.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
Before there are complaints at the length of the previous post, may I suggest that the debate would be considerably restrained if it were not possible to comprehensively reply to classic, snappy "Gish Gallop" reposts.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

RdrEmCofE, you were given the benefit of the doubt and this thread was reopened to give you a chance to demonstrate some adjustment to the ethos of the boards here.

You have since been reminded twice about the length of your posts, pursuant to Purgatory Guideline 6:
quote:
Purgatory is not the place to impose your particular view on others (...). Preachy postings will be deleted by the board hosts
and chosen to ignore this advice. In my view, attempting to justify a post over 1500 words long after the fact does not constitute appropriate adjustment, either.

We are not here for you to post walls of text.

I'm closing this thread again, pending review by the admins, and suggesting you get a blog.

/hosting
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0