The Doctrine of Baptism

1356

Comments

  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I'm surprised by these stories, though. I gather your denominations don't teach that any Christian can baptize in an emergency? (Or non-emergency, really, we just usually leave it to the clergy then for the sake of good order.) I thought that understanding was universal across Christianity.
    No, it’s not a universal thing understanding across Christianity. It’s not the understanding or practice in the Reformed tradition. And I’d imagine it’s unknown in credo-baptist traditions that also insist on immersion.

    That surprises me, because I thought in the Reformed tradition there is no ontological difference between the minister and any other member of the congregation?

    Or is the point simply that even if a random member of the congregation can baptise in principle, they are unlikely in practice to have access to a baptistery for baptism by immersion, and baptism by sprinkling is invalid even in extremis?

    Unless the Reformed tradition outwith Scotland is very different, sprinkling is the norm.
  • I was fascinated by Eutychus' description of French Reformed Christians as made up historically of a few, often wealthy families who tend(ed) to see anyone not from the right class or family in the way that Jews traditionally saw Samaritans.

    This immediately reminded me, as a social phenomenon, of the long established Catholic 'old' families' in England. Like the traditional French Reformed Christians ,these were people who would have lived somewhat apart from the generality of the population, aware of vicious persecution at times in the past, generally intermarrying amongst themselves ,knowing that the apostacy of one man would lead to the disappearance from the community of a whole family and quietly proud of maintaining the faith of their ancestors in a surrounding world which was mainly hostile to them.

    Suddenly in the middle of the 19th century the old Catholics saw themselves being swamped by hordes of co-religionists from Ireland, mainly from a different social class.
    As if that were not enough to deal with ,there were good numbers of converts from Anglicanism who were 'enthusiastic' about their new found form of Christianity who wished to introduce new 'Continental' devotions and to trumpet the benefits of Catholicism to the general population, instead of keeping their heads down and trying not to be noticed.

    Although that is a long time ago these tensions are still sometimes noticeable in today's English Catholicism (demographics in Scotland are quite different).

    It seems to me that one can find these tensions in French Reformed communities between the traditional Huguenot areas in the Cevennes and certain coastal regions and the Lutherans in Alsace with a slightly different history and then the 'new' and more independent evangelical congregations.

    Whatever baptism means, whether it makes us 'children of God and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven' or not, we still mostly remain human beings, who are aware of where we come from and who the others are around us.

    In every Christian grouping there are tensions between those who see the value coming to us from the past and those who see the value of using the dynamic element of the spirit of the times

    The parting words of Jesus to his followers are three commands,
    1. go out into the whole world (universal church)
    2. preach the good news (proclamation of the Word)
    3. baptise in the name of Father,Son and Holy Spirit (Sacraments).

  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    I'm surprised by these stories, though. I gather your denominations don't teach that any Christian can baptize in an emergency? (Or non-emergency, really, we just usually leave it to the clergy then for the sake of good order.) I thought that understanding was universal across Christianity.

    AIUI the main reason for baptism of very sick babies in hospital being carried out by chaplains most of the time involves the very strict hygiene protocols.

    As a general rule, to keep microbes out, no one is admitted into the NICU except for the babies' parents (and siblings, if they have them) and the medical staff. If you ask for your own minister of religion to be called, the request is likely to be denied and they will propose calling one of their own chaplains who's familiar with the way the place works. Most of my son's initial treatment took place in a specialised public hospital. We could have asked for a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim chaplain.

    I agree that most paedobaptist traditions would allow the parents to baptise the child themselves if there was no other option, but I suspect that many lay people don't know that. Also having a baby in the NICU is often a highly traumatic experience, and emotionally it may help people to have an officially ordained Representative of the Church™ come to perform the ritual.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Children of church families are already on a "fast track" irrespective of baptism - they'll be attending church with parents/grandparents, including whatever form of Sunday school is provided, and learning the faith at home.
    As I said, they are on a sociological fast track, irrespective of baptism as you say. Why complicate matters by baptising them as infants? From my perspective, this appears to put them on a theological/ecclesiological fast track too. They appear to acquire some degree of recognition of the body of Christ merely by virtue of blood ties, by an avenue that is not available to outsiders.

    This simply does not compute for me in terms of the NT. All the more so in that infants of parents in paedobaptist churches get baptised, then catechism follows, whereas someone joining from the outside invariably has to undergo cathechism before receiving baptism; in current RC practice round here, that takes around two years. How can baptism have the same ontological/theological value in both those cases?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 7
    (sorry, that should read "recognition as members of the body of Christ").
  • It’s not a race. It just isn’t. And if you insist on framing it as such, simply putting the age of baptism later isn’t going to change the “advantage”—those who get baptized in their teens will still have that advantage (whatever it is) over those who get baptized in their twenties, and so on. You’ve simply moved the starting post. And incidentally classed all children as outsiders to the kingdom of God. That’s a heavy price to pay in the name of fairness. Where’s the fairness when you’re pulling people onto a lifeboat? The nearest will always be grabbed first.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Children of church families are already on a "fast track" irrespective of baptism - they'll be attending church with parents/grandparents, including whatever form of Sunday school is provided, and learning the faith at home.
    As I said, they are on a sociological fast track, irrespective of baptism as you say. Why complicate matters by baptising them as infants? From my perspective, this appears to put them on a theological/ecclesiological fast track too. They appear to acquire some degree of recognition of the body of Christ merely by virtue of blood ties, by an avenue that is not available to outsiders.
    That seems to only hold if baptism is denied to children of outsiders, or considered inferior. If baptism is available to all and no one faces additional barriers for being baptised before they/their parents were members of the community then that negates the theological/ecclesiological fast track. Or, am I missing something?
    This simply does not compute for me in terms of the NT. All the more so in that infants of parents in paedobaptist churches get baptised, then catechism follows, whereas someone joining from the outside invariably has to undergo cathechism before receiving baptism; in current RC practice round here, that takes around two years. How can baptism have the same ontological/theological value in both those cases?
    My experience is that baptism of infants is something that comes with a follow-up several years later variously called confirmation, reception into full membership etc. This is a point where those who were baptised and have made a personal decision give a testimony to their faith, which is preceded by some form of catechism (that could be formal classes, it could be a simple recognition that the person has been in the church all their life and picked up the basics of the faith along the way) and usually has some form of personal testimony. When adults are baptised these are merged so that the immersion or sprinkling is accompanied by the personal testimony, and preceded by some form of catechism (by definition they must have learnt something of the faith to be in a position to have decided to come for baptism).

    Of course, as has been noted, we're all infants when we come to be baptised. And, also none of us have finished our catechism because we're all constantly learning more and more about the faith we have accepted.
  • Oh, and we will baptize anyone of any age upon request, with catechism to follow. We have in fact had people request it during the baptismal service of another family, and we did them. With adults we have a brief conversation to be sure they aren’t doing it as a perverse way of thanking the pastor for doing their immigration paperwork or what have you, and it’s off to the font. It’s a very serious thing to refuse someone baptism, and has no biblical precedent.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    One problem of using Acts as the foundation of modern church discipline is that it's describing a first generation church. There weren't a lot of children born to parents who were both already believers by the nature of the case.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 7
    It’s not a race. It just isn’t. And if you insist on framing it as such, simply putting the age of baptism later isn’t going to change the “advantage”—those who get baptized in their teens will still have that advantage (whatever it is) over those who get baptized in their twenties, and so on. You’ve simply moved the starting post. And incidentally classed all children as outsiders to the kingdom of God. That’s a heavy price to pay in the name of fairness. Where’s the fairness when you’re pulling people onto a lifeboat? The nearest will always be grabbed first.

    Firstly, I did not have the idea of a race in mind, but your analogy of grabbing people and pulling them into a lifeboat suggests that you do. If there is such a sense of urgency, why does it not extend beyond your own church community? And if it does, why do adult newcomers require catechising before baptism?*

    Secondly, I think that being non-discriminatory, and removing uneccessary obstacles (another favourite phrase of mine from Acts 15), is not quite the same thing as being 'fair'. We may not all be equal in terms of our exposure to the Gospel and a believing environment, but we should seek to be as equitable as possible in allowing people to become a part of a community of believers.

    In my understanding, we are all outsiders to the Kingdom of God until we accept it ourselves (and no matter which rituals or lack of them we enact, only the Lord knows who are his in the end). Of course, most churches will catechise children in the church community and naturally hope that these children will in due course accept the Kingdom of God themselves. But to my mind, baptising infants of church families amounts to an attempt to pre-empt that acceptance, and suggests a separate route to belonging to the Kingdom, via blood ties. I don't see it.

    ==
    *Sorry, on rereading I see you don't. But RC churches do.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    That seems to only hold if baptism is denied to children of outsiders, or considered inferior. If baptism is available to all and no one faces additional barriers for being baptised before they/their parents were members of the community then that negates the theological/ecclesiological fast track. Or, am I missing something?

    @Alan Cresswell , you said
    Our church has only baptised the children of people already connected to the congregation
    Aren't you enacting precisely this scenario?

    (emphasis in both quotes mine)
  • Possibly. But, I thought you were discussing those in the church already. Does it make any difference if those who never darken the doors chose to not get their children baptised?

    And, I doubt anyone would come and ask us for baptism anyway. But, if they did the Elders discussion would be very short before making an announcement to the church that we've been asked to baptise X and checking the church will authorise the minster to get her diary out and organise a suitable date. We're not going to go around the neighbourhood to say "if you want to have your children baptised, we're here" let alone force those who don't have any connection to the church to get their children baptised by us.

    We've also got a pool under the floor where we can baptise adults by full immersion, which is the tradition of the church though the URC practices both forms of baptism. In the time I've been here it's only been used by other churches who practice full immersion but don't have their own facilities to do that.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    One problem of using Acts as the foundation of modern church discipline is that it's describing a first generation church.

    On the whole I agree with this, but I don't think it leads me to the same conclusions as you.

    In respect of the matter at hand here, I think the specific problem is using the cultural context in which entire households had little or no say in their baptismal choices as a justification for continuing the practice now.

    It seems to me that - much like marriage - the history of infant baptism since then has often involved a certain amount of hand-waving around the finer details. With that in mind, I'm content with a practice for which I can find plenty of NT justification and which (to me at least) makes sense ontologically in today's world.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited February 7
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Inward-looking churches are everywhere to be found. But the idea that it's possible to get a head-start on being a recognised member of the spiritual community (recognised in theological, not just sociological terms) merely by virtue of being born to one of the existing members and being baptised at the parents' request before one can even express an opinion about it strikes me as totally odd, discriminatory, and un-NT like.
    To be honest, Eutychus, this strikes me as simply looking for reasons to object. I think @Alan Cresswell has it exactly right—the situation you’re describing exists in every church, regardless of whether paedo-baptism is practiced.

    Ricardus wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I'm surprised by these stories, though. I gather your denominations don't teach that any Christian can baptize in an emergency? (Or non-emergency, really, we just usually leave it to the clergy then for the sake of good order.) I thought that understanding was universal across Christianity.
    No, it’s not a universal thing understanding across Christianity. It’s not the understanding or practice in the Reformed tradition. And I’d imagine it’s unknown in credo-baptist traditions that also insist on immersion.

    That surprises me, because I thought in the Reformed tradition there is no ontological difference between the minister and any other member of the congregation?

    Or is the point simply that even if a random member of the congregation can baptise in principle, they are unlikely in practice to have access to a baptistery for baptism by immersion, and baptism by sprinkling is invalid even in extremis?
    You’re right that the Reformed tradition sees no ontological difference between the ordained and the not ordained. Limiting administration of the sacraments to the ordained (ministers, or in certain circumstances, elders) is a matter of order, not of ontological difference.

    And baptism in Reformed churches is rarely by immersion. Sprinkling or pouring is the norm.

    It has to do with two things, I think. The first is historical. Baptism is not understood as regenerative or necessary for salvation in the Reformed tradition, and generally fear about letting a child, or anyone else, die without having been baptized would be seen as misplaced at best and superstition at worst. That sense that it’s superstition has only disappeared relatively recently. (And it probably still lingers in some corners.) But the understanding that, in essence, emergency baptism is not “necessary” remains. It may be pastorally appropriate, but it’s not necessary in our view.

    The second is the understanding that the sacraments are celebrated by the church, not by an individual. Even in the case of a non-emergency baptism, a minister cannot baptize someone—child or adult—unless that baptism has been authorized through the means the church has put in place. In my particular branch of the Reformed tradition, that means the baptism must be approved by the Session, after meeting with the person/parents of the person to be baptized. (A minister can’t celebrate Communion whenever either; celebrations of the Eucharist also have to be authorized by Session or, as appropriate, a higher council.)

    It also means there’s an expectation that the wider church will be involved in the baptism. The congregation makes promises to the person being baptized at every baptism. In circumstances where baptism doesn’t in happen worship, there is an expectation that at least one member of the congregation will be present to represent the wider church. (In cases of emergency baptism I’ve been aware of, it’s usually been taken that family present can satisfy that expectation.)

    In my denomination, Sessions can authorize a minister to baptize in certain situations, such as hospitals, and most if not all Sessions I know of give ministers that authority. But it is only ministers of Word and Sacrament that we allow to be given that authority, for reasons of order.

    FWIW, we would regard an emergency baptism performed by, say, a Catholic or Anglican or Lutheran layperson as valid, because that layperson was, in effect, authorized by her or his church to baptize in emergency situations. Likewise for the baptism @Doublethink described. What would be seen by us to matter is that you’ve been authorized by the church and weren’t just acting on your own, not that you’re ordained per se. Other traditions authorize anyone to baptize in emergency situations, and that’s okay. But we, for the reasons I’ve described, don’t.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 7
    Possibly. But, I thought you were discussing those in the church already. Does it make any difference if those who never darken the doors chose to not get their children baptised?
    I think the practical difference it makes to outsiders is that it runs the risk of further characterising the church as an intra-family affair that is essentially perpetuated organically. That's not the message I get from the NT.

    To be honest, I think any church that's been around for more than one generation has this problem regardless of whether it's notionally a church of those who profess or of those who confess, but as I say, to me baptising infants seems like an obstacle to be removed in that respect.
    We're not going to go around the neighbourhood to say "if you want to have your children baptised, we're here" let alone force those who don't have any connection to the church to get their children baptised by us.
    Fair enough. I'm kind of intrigued as to why @Lamb Chopped's church doesn't though, from a point of view of consistency.

    [@Nick Tamen this was a x-post but may address your comment to me.]
  • What should happen next? I can't remember what actually happened!

    Stop and ask the child what they mean? Is the kid saying "no" to mean "Satan! No! I hate him!", or "no" to mean "I love Satan. I want to be his friend."

    Either is possible.

    Heh. I think it likely the child meant "I'm crabby, and I'm letting you know that!"

    Actually, if you heard the story on the Ship, I remember how it ends:
    the celebrant said, "Well, your brother's having it done" and the girl replied, "Oh well, go on, then."

    That's my interpretation of the child's response too!

    No, I did not hear the story on the Ship, so I think that it might be a separate instance. If it's not a made-up story, that suggests that this sort of thing is happening quite often!
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    @Nick Tamen - thanks, that's very clear and helpful.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    In my understanding, we are all outsiders to the Kingdom of God until we accept it ourselves (and no matter which rituals or lack of them we enact, only the Lord knows who are his in the end).

    I think I'd be wary of framing it this way because the conclusion is that small children and some adults are ipso facto outside of the Kingdom. I'm prooftexting (but someone will bring it up eventually) - 'Suffer little children to come unto me, etc.'
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    'Suffer little children to come unto me, etc.'

    To me, that reads as if Jesus assumes some volition on their part and wants them to be allowed to have the freedom to approach. Not that he wants them to be pre-emptively assigned to him.
  • Ray SunshineRay Sunshine Shipmate
    edited February 7
    @Eutychus, I can't be certain that this answers the specific question you’re asking here, but the Catholic Church holds that infant baptism serves the purpose of enabling the remission of original sin. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    403. Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM

  • While I happily accept the baptism of babies -- my three children were all baptized by 3 months -- for me it matters that they were in fact babies. Many anglican clergy around here will happily baptize babies and those up to the age of 2 or 3, but would urge parents that children older than that should wait until they can make a real personal commitment -- age 8 or over, at a guess. Not an "adult" commitment, but one which is appropriate for their age. A 3-4 year old has every right to shout "NO!" and to have that respected. Of course in Canada, no one has a right to baptism as those in the CofE do.

    Not too long before lockdown, we baptized a whole family at our place. Two parents, and three children - a boy aged 7-8, a girl of about 5, and an infant. It was wonderful! Our place typically does "first communion" aged 7-ish, mostly I think because parents want the photos in the white dresses like the Catholics do. I'd say families at our place split about 50-50 between those that wait for "first communion" to have their kids take communion, and those who take communion from toddlerhood or so.
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    Ricardus wrote: »
    @Nick Tamen - thanks, that's very clear and helpful.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    In my understanding, we are all outsiders to the Kingdom of God until we accept it ourselves (and no matter which rituals or lack of them we enact, only the Lord knows who are his in the end).

    I think I'd be wary of framing it this way because the conclusion is that small children and some adults are ipso facto outside of the Kingdom. I'm prooftexting (but someone will bring it up eventually) - 'Suffer little children to come unto me, etc.'

    And anyone whatever the age who has a mental or intellectual disability. In my experience, adults with severe Down Syndrome are admitted to the table without questions as to what they mean or understand. (Leaving aside the perennial question of how adequate the understanding any of us may be). I'd take the same position with regard to baptism.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    'Suffer little children to come unto me, etc.'

    To me, that reads as if Jesus assumes some volition on their part and wants them to be allowed to have the freedom to approach. Not that he wants them to be pre-emptively assigned to him.

    But no: "they were bringing little children to him" (Matthew 19:13), and the disciples were rebuking the bringers, but Jesus says "No, it's all good" (paraphrase).
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Sure. But there's still a big jump from bringing little children to Jesus to enjoining them into membership pre-emptively.

    (I don't think anybody much these days thinks "compel them to enter" in the parable means forced conversions... do they?).
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Shipmate
    edited February 7
    Another conversation with the same Catholic friend was about "If you ran out with some water and forcibly baptised people, would they be real baptisms?"

    His answer, which surprised me, was, "Yes, but it would be a terrible thing to do".

    (ETA: My surpise was that he thought they would be real baptisms, not that he thought it would be a terrible thing to do)
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    It’s not a race. It just isn’t. And if you insist on framing it as such, simply putting the age of baptism later isn’t going to change the “advantage”—those who get baptized in their teens will still have that advantage (whatever it is) over those who get baptized in their twenties, and so on. You’ve simply moved the starting post. And incidentally classed all children as outsiders to the kingdom of God. That’s a heavy price to pay in the name of fairness. Where’s the fairness when you’re pulling people onto a lifeboat? The nearest will always be grabbed first.

    Firstly, I did not have the idea of a race in mind, but your analogy of grabbing people and pulling them into a lifeboat suggests that you do. If there is such a sense of urgency, why does it not extend beyond your own church community? And if it does, why do adult newcomers require catechising before baptism?*

    I am deeply, deeply confused. First by the idea that a lifeboat suggests a race--and that your repeated use of terms like "fast track" does not. To me, your expressions sound like a competition, and you're concerned that no one have an unfair advantage. Which is just weird to me. In a life-saving emergency (which is exactly Christ's mission is, no? Though a long-running one, rather like the current pandemic, come to think of it)... but in an emergency, one grabs the nearest in need and helps. "But it's unfair!" doesn't enter into it.

    But laying that aside, have you known me this long and not realized we are missionaries? OF COURSE it extends beyond our own church community! We regard the whole metro area as our sphere of responsibility! And go no further because we've reached the limits of what our ministry can do--we trust Christ to assign other people to deal with (say) Kansas City and the like. Though we'd not refuse baptism to a Kansas City-ite if we happened across them and they asked, Chiefs fan or not.

    And so, yes. If someone came up to us on the street and asked for baptism, we'd do it. And arrange for catechism, naturally, to follow as soon as possible--because you don't plant tender seedlings and leave them unwatered. Note that we do NOT believe in the Calvinist idea of "Once saved, always saved"--we can find no warrant for it in Scripture, and much against it. Which is the reason we don't simply grab firehoses and start baptizing every random passer-by who walks down the street. What good does it do to plant new life in people who haven't asked for it and may actively refuse it and where there's no prospect of further watering? If anything, we would probably be doing them harm, as some would take such an assault as further reason to hate Christianity, and others would consider it a good luck charm, and refuse the Gospel on the grounds that "I've been done already."
    Eutychus wrote: »
    But to my mind, baptising infants of church families amounts to an attempt to pre-empt that acceptance, and suggests a separate route to belonging to the Kingdom, via blood ties. I don't see it.

    First of all, there's absolutely nothing standing in the way of any baptized child choosing to reject their baptism. Plenty do, to judge by the number of people who no longer attend church or identify as Christians. So the argument that we are somehow pre-empting their choice falls to the ground.

    As for blood ties--do you not realize that this is a case of proximity, not blood? Seriously. If a person is within earshot of the Gospel, they have the opportunity to be baptized. It doesn't matter if you are within earshot because you have a blood relative who drags you there on Sunday, or because you happen to work for the church as an organist or janitor or what have you, or because you overheard it through the church window. You may be baptized. Heck, you could be like me and get baptized after discovering the Gospel in a printed book, reading it in secret because you're a complete heathen with no knowledge of Christianity but also a bookworm and have run out of library books this week. I got baptized because somebody left a book in my way. It was proximity to the Gospel--and could have happened via radio, TV, or word of mouth. Or even Internet, as we saw with Daft Wee Bugger on the Ship back in March.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    When I was a seminarian, I did a semester in a Clinical Pastoral Education program. One night I was called to the hospital prenatal ward. A young woman who was in late-stage pregnancy was running a very high fever due to a urinary infection. She was hallucinating and thinking she was going to die. She wanted to be baptized. The medical staff just could not bring the fever down. After a few minutes, I said I would baptize her and did it with a bowl the nurses provided. After I did it she calmed down and went to sleep. I went out to fill out some paperwork (I was authorized to enter what I had done in her medical chart.) As I finished that, a nurse came up and told me the fever had broken. I followed up for the next couple of days. She delivered and was discharged.

    That was my first miracle.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    We're not going to go around the neighbourhood to say "if you want to have your children baptised, we're here" let alone force those who don't have any connection to the church to get their children baptised by us.
    Fair enough. I'm kind of intrigued as to why @Lamb Chopped's church doesn't though, from a point of view of consistency.

    *clutches head* Why do you think we don't?

    We are missionaries. Of course we go around the neighborhood (actually, metro area) offering baptism. We just don't do it out of a Gospel context, because that's not a thing here, and I'm grateful for it. Baptism belongs in the context of the Gospel. It's a miracle, not magic, and separating it from the message of the Gospel does violence to it.

    So what we do is to share the Gospel. We tell people about Jesus. We reach out in every way we can. And in that context, we offer baptism. I can just imagine the blank stares we would get if we offered baptism without the context of the Gospel! They'd be like, "My kid just took a bath, thank you," and back slowly away.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Re-baptism?
    I understand this happens across the spectrum from Orthodox to Clappy when changing affiliation.
  • It's not really re-baptism, it's "I don't think my previous baptism was real".
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited February 7
    Note that we do NOT believe in the Calvinist idea of "Once saved, always saved"--we can find no warrant for it in Scripture, and much against it. Which is the reason we don't simply grab firehoses and start baptizing every random passer-by who walks down the street. What good does it do to plant new life in people who haven't asked for it and may actively refuse it and where there's no prospect of further watering? If anything, we would probably be doing them harm, as some would take such an assault as further reason to hate Christianity, and others would consider it a good luck charm, and refuse the Gospel on the grounds that "I've been done already."
    With all respect, LC, and I have lots of it for you, it seems to me that this reflects some pretty fundamental misunderstandings of Calvinist/Reformed positions on perseverance of the saints. You seem to be applying Lutheran understandings and assumptions rather than Reformed understandings and assumptions. For example, your example of baptizing with a firehouse all who pass by, thereby planting new life in them, makes no sense at all from a Reformed perspective.

    I’m not at all criticizing you for not agreeing with us on this point. Just noting that your argument against our position doesn’t appear to be based on what we actually believe.


    Alan29 wrote: »
    Re-baptism?
    I understand this happens across the spectrum from Orthodox to Clappy when changing affiliation.
    Rebaptism is forbidden among my folk.

  • Not in my experience, if you've been baptized in the normal way (water and "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"). There are of course issues when those baptized as infants or without full immersion transfer to churches that think you have to be adult / dunked. But it's not a rejection of another church's baptism there--it's the belief (wrong in my estimation, but hey) that no baptism ever took place. If a person was baptized in a Lutheran church as an adult by full immersion (yes, we do it, we'll do you any way you want), it is my understanding that our credo-baptist brothers and sisters will take that baptism.

    This is not to say that no counter-examples exist. There may well be some group out there that refuses, and of course individual congregations can develop some unusual stances. And there are mistakes and weirdoes in all groups, mine included (are they EVER included, ay me). And my grandmother apparently got baptized eight or nine times, as she would move, start going to a new church, and ask for baptism there, and nobody had the wit to ask if she'd been baptized already. They apparently just took it for granted she hadn't, since she was asking.

    But my understanding and experience across the churches has been that baptism is the one thing we more or less agree on. People are not baptized into a denomination--they are baptized into Christ.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Even going from one denomination that practices believers baptism to another denomination that practices believers baptism will necessitate re baptism. Heck, this happens sometimes when one goes from one congregation to another congregation in the same denomination.

    What is the implication here? Are they implying the other congregation/denomination not really Christian.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Re-baptism?
    I understand this happens across the spectrum from Orthodox to Clappy when changing affiliation.
    There’s no second baptism in the Catholic Church. If you were baptised, in infancy or later, by someone — usually, but not necessarily, a minister of religion in a Protestant Church — using the standard Trinitarian formula, then you’re baptised and that’s it. An adult, baptised convert to the Catholic Church proceeds to Confirmation and First Communion, but is not baptised a second time.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Note that we do NOT believe in the Calvinist idea of "Once saved, always saved"--we can find no warrant for it in Scripture, and much against it. Which is the reason we don't simply grab firehoses and start baptizing every random passer-by who walks down the street. What good does it do to plant new life in people who haven't asked for it and may actively refuse it and where there's no prospect of further watering? If anything, we would probably be doing them harm, as some would take such an assault as further reason to hate Christianity, and others would consider it a good luck charm, and refuse the Gospel on the grounds that "I've been done already."
    With all respect, LC, and I have lots of it for you, it seems to me that this reflects some pretty fundamental misunderstandings of Calvinist/Reformed positions on perseverance of the saints. You seem to be applying Lutheran understandings and assumptions rather than Reformed understandings and assumptions. For example, your example of baptizing with a firehouse all who pass by, thereby planting new life in them, makes no sense at all from a Reformed perspective.

    I’m not at all criticizing you for not agreeing with us on this point. Just noting that your argument against our position doesn’t appear to be based on what we actually believe.

    To be clear, I was not arguing against your perspective, nor was I saying that you would baptize with a firehose. I don't think any Christian group would.

    What I was trying to do was head off the objection I could see coming to my own position, which would be, "Well, if you believe in baptismal regeneration, and you don't see a need for individual consent, why aren't you taking a fire hose... so everyone can be saved?" and so forth. That objection rests on a caricature of the Lutheran position joined to the idea of "once saved, always saved," which Lutherans do not believe, though most of my questioners have assumed we did.

    I apologize for being unclear.
  • Ah, thanks. My bad for not following. All good.
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited February 7
    It's not really re-baptism, it's "I don't think my previous baptism was real".

    Certainly the baptism introduced by John the Baptist was a baptism in water for the forgiveness of sins, but since John himself points out that the one who comes after me is greater than I (He must increase, I must decrease) John’s baptism is now a subset of our fuller understanding that Christian baptism is a symbol of burial.

    It is a simple reminder that the death of Jesus is our forgiveness and that water brings physical life just as His Spirit brings Life.

    Forgiveness that you receive during baptism is absolutely no different than the forgiveness you receive during your personal prayers. If it was then Christ would be showing favouritism.
  • I've never been entirely clear on where John's baptism stands vis-a-vis Christ's baptism. I mean, did people who got John's then later go on to get Jesus'? Or did Jesus consider them one and the same?

    It's academic now, but rather interesting.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Even going from one denomination that practices believers baptism to another denomination that practices believers baptism will necessitate re baptism.
    I don't think this is usually so - I don't think an independent evangelical church would usually insist on re-baptism of a Baptist who had undergone "believer's baptism". I could imagine though a transferring congregant feeling that "they hadn't really been a real Christian the first time" and thus desiring to be baptised a second time, "this time really for real". A bit like falling in love "and this time it's really for real" perhaps.

  • We receive forgiveness from Jesus each time we realise that we have messed up and asked for that forgiveness. But Jesus did specifically ask his Church to 'baptise in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.' God's prevenient grace is certainly not limited to the sacraments, but it is the ordinary way in which we can be sure that grace has been given.
    Otherwise it would seem to me that there is no need for baptism, no need for catechesis ,no need to even bother about improving ourselves, no need for any sermons ,no need for any Church
    We know that it is God who has created us out of His love for us. He gives us the opportunity to respond to His goodness, by joining formally the community of the Church
    Catholic teaching accepts that God accepts all who ,if in the circumstances had been give the choice of baptism would have accepted it.
    When mention was made of baptism without water, which is, of course not the normal way that baptism is carried out, we should not forget the longstanding teaching of the RC
    Church which is the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood..
    Without this Christians would have to ask ;why has Christ shown favouritism numerically to Europe and the places settled by Europeans ? Why has He not shown such favouritism to the generality of the population on some other continents ? Why has He allowed some good people to follow other religions ?
  • I've never been entirely clear on where John's baptism stands vis-a-vis Christ's baptism. I mean, did people who got John's then later go on to get Jesus'? Or did Jesus consider them one and the same?

    It's academic now, but rather interesting.

    John himself seems to have been put out that Jesus didn’t embrace the whole wilderness living with the locust and honey diet (Matthew 11). I imagine some of John’s disciples would have wanted to maintain these “traditional values”. Same with baptism.

    Some people are like that.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Even going from one denomination that practices believers baptism to another denomination that practices believers baptism will necessitate re baptism.
    I don't think this is usually so - I don't think an independent evangelical church would usually insist on re-baptism of a Baptist who had undergone "believer's baptism".
    It certainly happens in some Baptist churches in my part of the world, the American South, when one is moving from one Baptist church to another. Not the norm, but not so rare as to be too surprising either.

    Ditto for some evangelical non-denominational churches.

  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Re-baptism?
    I understand this happens across the spectrum from Orthodox to Clappy when changing affiliation.

    We (TEC) might baptize someone conditionally, if there was doubt about whether they had been validly baptized, but if someone is baptized with water and the Triune Name, they are baptized, whoever did it.


  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    I recall that, when I was at university, there was a group of Anglican students who decided that their baptism as infants meant nothing, so they managed to get themselves baptised “for real” by immersion. Some remained within the C of E, others became Baptists or joined independent churches.

    At the same time, I, a life-long Christian, decided to make a commitment to the Church of England. I put it that way as a) being brought up in a Christian family I cannot pinpoint a time when I made a decision to be a Christian and b) I had become engaged to an ordinand. I had been brought up in Brethren and Baptist circles, so I had not been baptised as an infant, of course, nor had I opted for baptism in my teenage years, as I was not entirely comfortable in the Baptist church. In fact at the age of 16 or so, I had made the decision to wait till I got to university when I would look around and decide where I felt I belonged.
    I took the decision to be confirmed and the Bishop baptised me at the same service. Although this was a necessary procedure, my thinking was that baptism as an infant would have been the more appropriate time for me. I was not a new convert, nor was I coming back to an abandoned faith. So I cannot say that baptism was a sign of grace or forgiveness, whereas as a child, it would have been a welcome into God’s family.

    Incidentally, my mother, who was the daughter of a Salvation Army officer, was never baptised. I am not aware that it made an iota of difference. Did it?
  • Baptism is a way God gives us new life in Christ. That is not to say it's the only way.

    That said, I would really prefer not to get crossways with Matthew 28:19. To do so willingly would be for me to elevate my own understanding over a pretty straightforward command in Scripture, and who am I?
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited February 7
    Baptism is a way God gives us new life in Christ. That is not to say it's the only way.

    That said, I would really prefer not to get crossways with Matthew 28:19. To do so willingly would be for me to elevate my own understanding over a pretty straightforward command in Scripture, and who am I?

    I agree. Likewise with the Last Supper in Luke 22. One way to look at Baptism and Communion is that they are both dramatised parables in which we may freely choose to take part.
  • Puzzler wrote: »
    I recall that, when I was at university, there was a group of Anglican students who decided that their baptism as infants meant nothing, so they managed to get themselves baptised “for real” by immersion. Some remained within the C of E, others became Baptists or joined independent churches.

    I have seen with my TurquoiseTastic eyes something very similar happen in an Anglican evangelical church about 20 years ago with Anglican teenagers being effectively "re-baptised" despite having been baptised in an Anglican church as infants! The form of words probably described it as a "re-commitment" but there was certainly immersion involved, so that it looked for all the world as though the infant baptism was considered null and void and that only "believer's baptism" really counted.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »

    The parting words of Jesus to his followers are three commands,
    1. go out into the whole world (universal church)
    2. preach the good news (proclamation of the Word)
    3. baptise in the name of Father,Son and Holy Spirit (Sacraments).
    Not according to the earliest versions of Mark's gospel

  • The earliest versions of Mark's gospel we have don't end with any words of the risen Christ. They end with the women scooting off, terrified.
  • Puzzler wrote: »
    I recall that, when I was at university, there was a group of Anglican students who decided that their baptism as infants meant nothing, so they managed to get themselves baptised “for real” by immersion. Some remained within the C of E, others became Baptists or joined independent churches.

    I have seen with my TurquoiseTastic eyes something very similar happen in an Anglican evangelical church about 20 years ago with Anglican teenagers being effectively "re-baptised" despite having been baptised in an Anglican church as infants! The form of words probably described it as a "re-commitment" but there was certainly immersion involved, so that it looked for all the world as though the infant baptism was considered null and void and that only "believer's baptism" really counted.

    It wasn’t that the infant baptism didn’t count, it was that some people have a desire to be fully immersed in the same way that Jesus was - as I did. Somehow, for me, the confirmation didn’t do it. I was horrified when someone suggested I shouldn’t be ‘dunked’ as I had been christened, but the enlightened Vicar said that I could ‘affirm my baptism’. There were already several young people who had never been christened and they had a desire to be dunked too, so I tagged along, leaving a few of the words of the liturgy out.

    It was a very profound experience for me. I know others for whom the confirmation was special, and know some who are delighted that they were christened as babies. All are valid in the eyes of God, I’m sure. It’s what’s in the heart that matters.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 7
    One thing this thread is teaching me is that the participants come from very different worlds.

    @Lamb Chopped I'm sorry, I have made some assumptions about your position that were mistaken. Notably that while you believe in baptismal regeneration, you also believe that a thus regenerated person can reject that regeneration. Is that correct? Because if it is, it's the first time I've encountered such a belief.

    Aside from that, as far as I can see, on your view an infant child of an unchurched parent who embraces the faith thereby becomes eligible for baptism, which confers an inherent spiritual benefit, in a way an unchurched person who has attained the age of reason cannot until the church has assured itself they have a minimum understanding of what's going on (once they have, the same benefit as above presumably extends to their children). Is that correct? If it is, can you see what I mean about the existence of an alternative route to benefiting from this sacrament that is open only to those with a parental tie to the faith?

    (I think the status of children of first-generation believers in a congregation is in fact fuzzy. So I think it's preferable not to perform any ritual concerning them that might suggest anything less fuzzy).

    To several other people:

    In my experience, more and more Christian denominations recognise each others' baptisms, but to varying degrees and with varying effects.

    I admit to having baptised people who had received an infant baptism, not because of any statement about its invalidity but usually because it made no sense to the person as a believer. I don't think baptising them as a believer is going to magically "undo" anything the infant baptism did, but I do think refusing such a baptism might well be a stumbling-block for many candidates. (As already stated baptism as a believer is not a condition of membership of the church I'm in).

    I have also baptised plenty of believers who had received no infant baptism. The same applies across the board here with the possible exception of the Catholics. Our local Reformed pastor is very Lutheran, but as I understand it he and most other Reformed churches increasingly shy away from infant baptisms in favour of believers' baptisms. I think the reality is that whatever the official doctrine states or allows for, churches' functional understanding of baptism, especially among paedobaptists, is in fact being shaped by social trends.

    (Meanwhile, Jehovah's Witnesses use a Trinitarian baptismal formula. How many of y'all would accept a JW's baptism as valid?)
Sign In or Register to comment.