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.
Yes, this is correct. And one can do it (God forbid!) at any point in one's life, hence all those scary passages in Hebrews and elsewhere.
It's not that strange a belief--to the best of my knowledge, the doctrine that goes by "perseverance of the saints" is only prevalent among the heirs of Calvin. RCs, Lutherans, Orthodox-I-think, all admit the possibility of falling away. So baptism is not an automatic, irrevocable ticket to heaven, as some think that we teach.
Just taking up that phrase "regenerated person"--we use this terminology, but with the constant understanding that the sin nature continues to be a hassle to believers until death. The joking way of putting it is that baptism is for drowning the Old Adam, but he's a very good swimmer. So we believe that there are in fact two wills, two natures battling it out inside the Christian, a la Romans 7--which is how it is even possible for said person to commit spiritual suicide and throw away his faith. Not that this happens easily or lightly--the Spirit of God is tenacious, and God is gracious, and will go to extraordinary lengths to keep a person in the faith. But if someone is determined to throw it out, well... (Though in my experience, God's patience stretches out lifelong, and he can grab such a person back at from the very jaws of death. I think this is what happened with my father, who was anti-Christian for so much of his life. I rather suspect the buried seed of his baptism (which he underwent because he thought my mother wouldn 't date him otherwise) finally came to the surface and showed itself. But God knows, not me.
I mention it in case you think I'm postulating that a regenerate person performs unregenerate acts, flying in the face of logic. It's more complicated than that.
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 we're still at cross purposes here. First of all, I'm not at all sure what "eligible" means in the context of baptism. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the only thing that makes one eligible for baptism is being a human being, and therefore someone that Christ died for. Every human being is eligible for baptism, and woe to anyone who refuses it to a requester without an extraordinarily good reason (such as "you've been baptized already, I saw it with my own eyes" or some such).
Could you maybe explain to me in different words what's going on here?
I confess I was taken aback by the idea that anybody (a synod, board, council, or what have you) needed to sign off on someone's baptism. I've never encountered that idea anywhere before. It seems to me rather like signing off on childbirth. Do you have any grounds on which such a group might actually refuse baptism?
(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?)
I know many Lutherans get freaked out by the idea of re-baptizing someone who was baptized as an infant. It seems to me, from the context in which they discuss it, that they fear that allowing a second baptism will encourage people to doubt their own baptisms and possibly lose faith and comfort in the sacrament altogether. As for myself, I look at the pastoral care bit--meaning, the only folks I run across who want to do this sort of thing are normally people who are emotionally upset and fear that they are somehow disobeying God if they don't redo it as an adult, or in a pool, or with a triple immersion, or some such requirement, and they honestly want to do whatever they think will make God happy. And though I think them mistaken, if they persist in being scared and unhappy, I think it might be better for them to go ahead and set their minds at ease rather than have them go on suffering that way. I can't see why God would mind.
Re the Jehovah's Witnesses, yes, I think we would accept such a baptism. As long as we were clear on the water and the baptismal words, I don't think it would matter who did the administration. Though again, if anyone was in painful doubt, we'd probably do a conditional baptism just to comfort their conscience.
(Meanwhile, Jehovah's Witnesses use a Trinitarian baptismal formula. How many of y'all would accept a JW's baptism as valid?)
I think your statement is false. JWs do not baptize with a Trinitarian formula, or believe in the Trinity. The link you shared doesn't actually say that they baptize with a trinitarian formula. It is, in fact, quite careful not to talk about what they do when they baptize someone.
I think we're still at cross purposes here. First of all, I'm not at all sure what "eligible" means in the context of baptism. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the only thing that makes one eligible for baptism is being a human being, and therefore someone that Christ died for. Every human being is eligible for baptism, and woe to anyone who refuses it to a requester without an extraordinarily good reason (such as "you've been baptized already, I saw it with my own eyes" or some such).
Could you maybe explain to me in different words what's going on here?
You'll baptise infants of congregation members, I think on the basis of their parents' faith. And you believe that doing so (the rite itself) imparts a measure of spiritual life. Whereas an unchurched person of an age of reason needs to give you assurances as to a minimum of belief to benefit from that same rite. So baptism is (slightly) more difficult for them (there are more conditions depending on they themselves) than for an infant of a congregant. Is that correct, and does it make sense?
I confess I was taken aback by the idea that anybody (a synod, board, council, or what have you) needed to sign off on someone's baptism. I've never encountered that idea anywhere before. It seems to me rather like signing off on childbirth. Do you have any grounds on which such a group might actually refuse baptism?
That wasn't me, that was @Nick Tamen I think. And now I'm off to bed.
(Meanwhile, Jehovah's Witnesses use a Trinitarian baptismal formula. How many of y'all would accept a JW's baptism as valid?)
I think your statement is false. JWs do not baptize with a Trinitarian formula, or believe in the Trinity. The link you shared doesn't actually say that they baptize with a trinitarian formula. It is, in fact, quite careful not to talk about what they do when they baptize someone.
Can we find a definitive answer? @Anteater might know, maybe?
Can we find a definitive answer? @Anteater might know, maybe?
This appears to be a blog by a JW talking about what they do, but I wouldn't go so far as to consider it authoritative. And it has a long defense about how "baptize in the name of ..." doesn't mean what most of us think it does, which rather suggests that they don't, if you see what I mean?
Mischievious question - did Jesus undergo Christian baptism or only the baptism of John?
ETA: if the former, was this the only Christian baptism that John performed?
My guess is that it was not a Christian baptism, because John did not use the Trinitarian formula. But it doesn't matter, because Jesus didn't need to be baptised in those words.
I have a separate but related question arising from the same passage. The baptism of Jesus is in all three Synoptics, but Matthew alone records John’s startled reaction: “I need to be baptised by you, and you come to me?” Jesus refused John’s request, but if he had acceded to it, what difference would that have made to the rite of baptism as practised by the churches?
I confess I was taken aback by the idea that anybody (a synod, board, council, or what have you) needed to sign off on someone's baptism. I've never encountered that idea anywhere before.
In our case, a baptism would take place within the context of the normal church service, and the Elders are responsible for ensuring worship happens in good order. So, the Elders would need to "sign off" that - which relates to an extent questions such as how many guests would attend (how many extra chairs do we set out? and, would the church be big enough of it was a lot of people?) would the guests be familiar with our form of worship or would we need to take that into consideration? would the baptism be conducted by the minister, in which case it needs to be scheduled for a week when she's present? or, by another member of the congregation? would that be the person leading the rest of the service? do we use the font, or do we need to get the tub opened and filled (with significant implications on how many people the church can hold)?
On top of which we may need to ask why the person wants to be baptised (or, have their child baptised) and why our wee church? There'd be issues if it was just social expectation without any belief in Christ or intention to ever come to church again. If someone was a person of faith, then the questions would be why our church rather than their own church?
It would seem very strange if someone just walked in off the street and asked for baptism for themselves or their child, and the font was immediately filled without some questions being asked other than "what's the name?"
That wasn't me, that was @Nick Tamen I think. And now I'm off to bed.
Yes, I assumed that was addressed to me, but I’m about to be occupied for a while. I’ll answer when I can. But meanwhile, @Alan Cresswell has said at least part of what I’d say.
I think we're still at cross purposes here. First of all, I'm not at all sure what "eligible" means in the context of baptism. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the only thing that makes one eligible for baptism is being a human being, and therefore someone that Christ died for. Every human being is eligible for baptism, and woe to anyone who refuses it to a requester without an extraordinarily good reason (such as "you've been baptized already, I saw it with my own eyes" or some such).
Could you maybe explain to me in different words what's going on here?
You'll baptise infants of congregation members, I think on the basis of their parents' faith. And you believe that doing so (the rite itself) imparts a measure of spiritual life. Whereas an unchurched person of an age of reason needs to give you assurances as to a minimum of belief to benefit from that same rite. So baptism is (slightly) more difficult for them (there are more conditions depending on they themselves) than for an infant of a congregant. Is that correct, and does it make sense?
I confess I was taken aback by the idea that anybody (a synod, board, council, or what have you) needed to sign off on someone's baptism. I've never encountered that idea anywhere before. It seems to me rather like signing off on childbirth. Do you have any grounds on which such a group might actually refuse baptism?
That wasn't me, that was @Nick Tamen I think. And now I'm off to bed.
We both seem to be mixing up what others have said with what one another has said (oh dear, my grammar has become remarkably involved, never mind). No, we do NOT baptize infants on the basis of their parents' faith. We baptize them on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection for them personally, and their parents' faith (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it. The only way anyone else's faith plays into the whole baptismal scenario is that we are pastorally reluctant to baptize an infant who has no further access to Christianity once he or she is carried out the church door, because there are no Christians in the family, and no friends, relatives, or godparents willing to take responsibility for nurturing the new young life. But of course in our context (American and especially Vietnamese immigrant) such a thing rarely happens. There is no cultural expectation of baptism as a thing that one does quite unconnected to faith. At the worst there might be a Christian grandmother lurking in the background who wants the baby baptized, while the parents and everybody else are unbelievers. In that case, we have a serious discussion about what they're letting themselves in for, as well as requiring them to commit to providing the child with access to the church and with sponsors (godparents) who will take responsibility for raising the child in the faith. But we won't say no.
As for an unchurched person rocking up to the font and asking for baptism out of the blue, we would first ask him "Why?" and listen to the answer. If it becomes clear that he is doing this because some nut has told him that the Lutheran Church will give him ten thousand dollars (don't laugh, that rumor has gone around!), we will disabuse him of the notion, which usually takes away the desire for baptism as well. If it turns out he is grateful for our help in some difficulty (illness, immigration problem, whatever) and has seized upon baptism as a way of repaying us, we will disabuse him of this notion as well (I usually take care to express a craving for jasmine tea to forestall things like this!). If, however, he shows the slightest desire for baptism as connected to Jesus, we will sit him down in the nearest pew and do a real quick catechesis with the goal of making sure he has in fact heard the Gospel--from us then and there, if not previously. And then we'll baptize him. He's a human being in need who wants it. We have no grounds for refusing him. We cannot judge his faith, and we aren't called to do that. The mere request (with obvious freakiness ruled out) is sufficient to show something is going on between God and him. And I don't want Jesus giving me the hairy eyeball for turning one of his sheep away. We'll do the in-depth catechesis afterward.
Re-baptism?
I understand this happens across the spectrum from Orthodox to Clappy when changing affiliation.
Rebaptism is forbidden among my folk.
Re-baptism is generally forbidden; baptising when you have solid doubts about the validity of any previous actions is not. At least, that's how I'd see it.
Many American Presbyterian churches will use a version of a portion of the French Reformed baptismal liturgy at the baptism of infants. After the baptism (and anointing), the minister, holding the child, will say to the child something along these lines:
For you, little one,
the Spirit of God moved over the waters at creation,
and the Lord God made covenants with his people.
It was for you that the Word of God became flesh
and lived among us, full of grace and truth.
For you, name, Jesus Christ suffered death
crying out at the end, "It is finished!"
For you Christ triumphed over death,
rose in newness of life,
and ascended to rule over all.
All of this was done for you, little one,
though you do not know any of this yet.
But we will continue to tell you this good news
until it becomes your own.
And so the promise of the gospel is fulfilled:
“We love because God first loved us.”
We used a variant of this at my kid's (infant) baptisms. It was very meaningful to me at least.
There's a lot of talk about technicalities and wording in this thread, but the wider ritual and quasi-ritual elements surrounding the wording are I think at least as important.
The Demasites' baptisms were a classic liberal Reformed service - the baptism was done in an ordinary Sunday service, and after the whole waterish bit, the minister carried the baby up and down the aisle while the congregation sang the Aaronic blessing. It wasn't the words, or the difference between sprinkling, dunking and immersing. The structure of the service emphasised the communal nature of the event. The community, the Church visible not theoretical, was welcoming the new baby into its life.
I've been to friends' and relatives' baptisms from Anglican/CoE backgrounds which were done at a chapel, or a church during the week, with friends and relatives but no congregation. The words were pretty much the same, in fact identical in the obvious places, but the feel of the whole was quite different. It was the family welcoming its newest member, and maybe showing that newest member off to its friends and loved ones. One I remember had the baby girl in a lovely classic white Christening dress.
A baptism done in extremis in a hospital is surely something else as well - something more intimate between parents and God. Partly maybe a reminder by the parents to God: you promised.
All these seem socially (sociologically?) almost different rituals, and baptism as part of the conversion process for adults as a different ritual again!
On the subject of authorizing baptisms, I was Worship Comittere chair at my church and sat when we approved my nieces baptisms. Reformed folk can't breathe without committees.
3 The Bible clearly teaches that if you want to serve Jehovah, you should get baptized. Jesus told his followers: “Make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them.” (Matthew 28:19) Jesus also set the example by getting baptized himself. He was completely immersed in water, not just sprinkled with water on his head. (Matthew 3:16) Today when a Christian is baptized, he must also be completely immersed, or dipped, in water.
The citation from their Bible is
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations,a baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,
Compare to a more traditional translation (NIV)
19 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,
Note the difference? The holy spirit is not a person of God in the JW mind.
Growing up in a conservative Lutheran church I also was told we did not accept the LDS baptism either. They baptize in the names of God the Father, God the Son, and God, the Holy Ghost. In the LDS mind, I was told, there were three Gods not a Trinitarian God.
Now I would acknowledge other mainline churches have begun to accept the LDS baptism, but I still prefer to use a conditional baptism in the case of the Mormons
3 The Bible clearly teaches that if you want to serve Jehovah, you should get baptized. Jesus told his followers: “Make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them.” (Matthew 28:19) Jesus also set the example by getting baptized himself. He was completely immersed in water, not just sprinkled with water on his head. (Matthew 3:16) Today when a Christian is baptized, he must also be completely immersed, or dipped, in water.
The citation from their Bible is
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations,a baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,
Compare to a more traditional translation (NIV)
19 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,
Note the difference? The holy spirit is not a person of God in the JW mind.
Growing up in a conservative Lutheran church I also was told we did not accept the LDS baptism either. They baptize in the names of God the Father, God the Son, and God, the Holy Ghost. In the LDS mind, I was told, there were three Gods not a Trinitarian God.
Now I would acknowledge other mainline churches have begun to accept the LDS baptism, but I still prefer to use a conditional baptism in the case of the Mormons
If this is the case, it gets a bit iffy in my mind. The words are fine (spoken, anyway) and we don't usually bother with the faith or otherwise of the administrator, because that's nonprovable, and in any case, it's God doing his work, and not the human baptizer. But given the murk around both JWs and LDS, I suspect we'd wind up doing a conditional baptism just in case.
But that would be more for comfort than because we have serious doubts about the goodness of God and whether he'd honor a screwy baptism obtained in, er, "good faith."
For you, little one,
the Spirit of God moved over the waters at creation,
and the Lord God made covenants with his people.
It was for you that the Word of God became flesh
and lived among us, full of grace and truth.
For you, name, Jesus Christ suffered death
crying out at the end, "It is finished!"
For you Christ triumphed over death,
rose in newness of life,
and ascended to rule over all.
All of this was done for you, little one,
though you do not know any of this yet.
But we will continue to tell you this good news
until it becomes your own.
And so the promise of the gospel is fulfilled:
“We love because God first loved us.”
Can we find a definitive answer? @Anteater might know, maybe?
This appears to be a blog by a JW talking about what they do, but I wouldn't go so far as to consider it authoritative. And it has a long defense about how "baptize in the name of ..." doesn't mean what most of us think it does, which rather suggests that they don't, if you see what I mean?
That's informative, thanks. It looks as though in a JW's (official) mind, "Holy Spirit" exclusively means the Jehovah's Witnesses as an organisation. The organisation assumes divine status and woe betide anyone going against God (i.e. the organisation). If the Trinitarian formula is used at baptism, the implied meaning is that one is baptised into the organisation as the sole representative of God on earth. That's what one might call an extreme exclusivist position.
I think the comparison with communion that several have made is a germane one. Views on the latter range from transubstantiation to memorialist and seem to have fluctuated over time. To me this suggests a rite with a symbolic value that can to some extent at least be legitimately reinterpreted in multiple ways.
Can I take it then that baptism can be a 'means of grace' if the participant is actively engaged ?
Do all ' means of grace' come only from the active participation of the human being and none from God to man ?
The way I would put it is that means of grace are extended from God to man, but they are only meaningful, effectual, if an individual engages in a meaningful way.
Where does this idea come from? I search the scriptures in vain for "engage in a meaningful way" as a criteria for anything.
Quite. I have no idea what these "means of Grace" look like or how I engage with them "in a meaningful way".
A lot of talk about this whole area seems to be couched in terms of God approaching us and our choosing how to respond to him. That is not my experience at all, many people I know would gladly respond to God if they had any reason at all to suppose he was there and had any interest in them.
Does the doctrine of original sin and the old Adam/new Christ stuff have any meaning at all post Darwin?
If not, what does it mean for baptism and the whole (Pauline) notion of rising (from the waters) into a new life in Christ?
Does the doctrine of original sin and the old Adam/new Christ stuff have any meaning at all post Darwin?
If not, what does it mean for baptism and the whole (Pauline) notion of rising (from the waters) into a new life in Christ?
Well, this is why creationists get so excited about it. I think if you're tied to an idea of original sin being some kind of sickness passed on through sexual reproduction from a single infected ancestor, then you could have a problem. On the one hand it's certainly possible (indeed evolution depends on it) for a single de novo mutation to become ubiquitous throughout an entire population, but it takes time and if a putative Adam and Eve were contemporary with lots of other humans then many generations would have to take place before that would become the case and all the lineages not carrying the Original Sin Gene (if you like) become extinct.
I'm not inclined to believe in original sin. The simple reality, to me, is that many behaviours that we might call sinful are ones which give us an advantage. If I steal your food and kill you, then (a) I get your food and (b) you can't steal mine or reproduce. So I'm the one who gets to pass my homicidal tendencies to my children and you don't get to pass yours on. That's why we're tempted to do these things - they give us as an individual advantage. Selfishness is the root of much of what we call sin but selfishness is often a good survival technique. But as we developed as a rational, empathic, social and moral species we became consciously aware of the conflict between what benefits us a person and what benefits others with whom we empathise. Mythologising that with talk of Original Sin, our sinful nature versus our conscience, "I do what I do not want to do" and all that, makes perfect sense.
The whole garden, snake, fruit story strikes me as a good description of what humans are like - give them everything they need, put one button in marked "do not press" and they'll trip over each other getting to the button. Because they want to know what it does.
The way I would put it is that means of grace are extended from God to man, but they are only meaningful, effectual, if an individual engages in a meaningful way.
Where does this idea come from? I search the scriptures in vain for "engage in a meaningful way" as a criteria for anything.
@mousethief the passage that mentions remission of sins in relation to baptism (Acts 2:38) goes on to say that "those who accepted his message were baptized" (Acts 2:41). These baptisms at least are presented as an informed response on the part of the hearers to what they heard, and they are by no means the only ones presented thus in Acts.
Taking the parallel with the Lord's Supper again, 1 Corinthians 11:29 talks about partakers "discerning the body of Christ" which to my mind suggests an informed response on the part of the communicant, and one that the context suggests is (literally) of vital importance.
I had always thought that almost all Christians believed that the effects of baptism washed away our 'sins', however or wherever baptism was administered. It is interesting to find that this is not the case.
However baptism is not a magic rite and neither are the other sacraments. It is not the saying of the words alone, but also the intention . Without the intention to baptise the words mean nothing. I think that most people would agree that if an actor played the part of a baptismal celebrant in a film and said 'the magic words' that would not be a baptism. As well as the intention there has to be faith. In a Catholic baptismal ceremony the first question asked is ,What do you ask of God's holy church ? and the second is 'Do you believe in God, the Father almighty ......etc? (I'm paraphrasing somewhat but these are the essential ideas)
For the idea of washing away of sins we could use the more elegant expression of baptismal regeneration.
Although for many Christians baptism is seen as the entry into the family of the Church and the way to begin our journey towards sainthood ,we are aware of the tendency to fall into sin. However we describe sin, it is selfishness and there is no-one who is more selfish, perhaps because one is helpless ,than a baby.
Surrounding the ceremony of baptism there is the giving of a white garment, not an essential part of the ceremony but a reminder to the newly baptised or to those making themselves responsible for the newly baptised that it is our job as we go through life to keep that white garment unspotted and unstained.
I am sure that there will be people who have made a declaration of faith and committed once and for all their life fully to Christ, with or without believer's baptism, who will have re-evaluated their life style and fallen away.
I had always thought that almost all Christians believed that the effects of baptism washed away our 'sins', however or wherever baptism was administered. It is interesting to find that this is not the case.
No evangelical denomination I know believes this, although some of the rank and file might assert it in a non-thought-out way. Evangelicals see believers' baptism as a testimony to the baptisee believing and confessing that Christ has 'washed away their sins', not something that happens through the rite itself. What it is understood to mean in terms of church/Church membership varies.
(One of my takeaways from this discussion (in addition to @chrisstiles memorable "we are all infants at baptism" line) is the comment, I think by @Nick Tamen, about the church making a commitment towards the newly baptised, as well as the other way around. That's given me food for thought).
It is not the saying of the words alone, but also the intention.
Absolutely, but aside from the intention of the baptiser, what counts for proponents of believers' baptism is the intention of the baptisee. Their position would be that in matters of salvation, one cannot have faith by proxy for somebody else (and indeed that would be my position).
One of my takeaways from this discussion ... is the comment, I think by @Nick Tamen, about the church making a commitment towards the newly baptised, as well as the other way around. That's given me food for thought.
Although I hold strongly to a "Believers' Baptism" position, I'm sure that the best of Paedobaptists do take this responsibility very seriously. Also true in churches such as mine, where good practice "follows up" Infant Blessings/Dedications.
I'm wondering whether "paedobaptist" isn't as unhelpful as a term as "anabaptist" or "rebaptiser". It seems to me that those described as "paedobaptist" are in fact "panbaptist" in the sense that they baptise at any age, both adult and infant.
However we describe sin, it is selfishness and there is no-one who is more selfish, perhaps because one is helpless ,than a baby.
Yeah, selfish little bastards, wanting to survive. Send the fuckers to Hell.
Seriously, what an absolutely batshit statement. A baby hasn't the mental furniture yet to understand that other people like itself in any way even exist. And people wonder why the world thinks Christians are off their heads.
Thanks, Karl, but instead of sending them to Hell, the Church tries to prepare the way for them to get to Heaven.
The tendency to sin is present within all of us.
Thanks, Karl, but instead of sending them to Hell, the Church tries to prepare the way for them to get to Heaven.
The tendency to sin is present within all of us.
Prepare the way? Like they'd be Hellbound without the Church's help?
Which brings us ( not so nicely) on to the question of the fate of the unbaptised?
In particular I raised the question upthread of an adult who has never been baptised( eg my mother who lived to 92, married to a full time Christian worker and fully involved in that work, but originally in the Salvation Army). Did it, does it matter that she was unbaptised as a Christian?
Which brings us ( not so nicely) on to the question of the fate of the unbaptised?
In particular I raised the question upthread of an adult who has never been baptised( eg my mother who lived to 92, married to a full time Christian worker and fully involved in that work, but originally in the Salvation Army). Did it, does it matter that she was unbaptised as a Christian?
A whole bloody can of worms. What about people who were baptised but lost their faith. What about those who never had any in the first place? Not everyone has the mental furniture in place to believe in a being for whom there is scant evidence. To many people it appears blindingly obvious that it's a load of cobblers. According to many, God has apparently absolutely no conception of how hard he is to actually believe in and gets really baitey with people who can't do it.
Puzzler - certain from a Catholic point of view your mother received the 'baptism of desire'. It seems from what you say that she was committed to Christ and that ,again from a Catholic point of view, would have received baptism had it been presented to her as the normal way of joining in formally with the Christian Church.
It's long struck me that whatever your theology on baptism, whether of babies or adults you will always find there is a piece that doesn't fit.
For @Eutychus are you so determined that the church congregation won't become a clique of the self-perpetuating that you exclude the children of the members from it - in which case where are they if they die before reaching years of discretion, and don't most Christian parents want to do their best to bring up their own children in the faith. Is that wrong?
And for all of us who belong to churches that baptise babies, were probably baptised ourselves before we can remember and quite likely confirmed as a matter of form, how do we mark coming to faith? What do we think about our fellow babies whom we know as adults have not persevered as saints.
And for those who claim that Baptism is 'just' a symbolic sign, which only represents th washing away of sins, without actually doing so, do we really believe that is how the Ethiopian eunuch or the Philipian gaoler understood it.
Years ago I read a learned work but I can't remember who by, which inter alia produced quite a lot of evidence that the church of 100-500 AD was by no means as unanimous as most people claim it was in support of their various - and incompatible - modern positions.
As so often on these threads and as I've said before, I think @Lamb Chopped has talked a lot of good sense.
Meanwhile, changing to a lighter note, and hoping it's not scratching something painful, @Puzzler did you marry your ordinand? Dropping a reference like that casually into the conversation has, I'm sure, left us all wondering.
Oh dear. Yes, but it did not last. I am now married to a man who is ordained, and retired, but that’s Too Much Information already!
If I had not felt the need and desire to become an Anglican, for my own reasons, not just for my then fiancé’s sake, I suspect I might have remained unbaptised too. I missed the boat, so to speak, by not being born into a family where infant baptism is the norm, I didn’t take up the opportunity as a teenager in a Baptist church, nor was it suggested to me post- conversion, as that did not apply. So actually it might easily not have happened. I suppose it might have been a barrier to church membership, but theologically I can’t see it makes any difference.
I certainly don’t consign the unbaptised to hell!
However baptism is not a magic rite and neither are the other sacraments. It is not the saying of the words alone, but also the intention . Without the intention to baptise the words mean nothing. I think that most people would agree that if an actor played the part of a baptismal celebrant in a film and said 'the magic words' that would not be a baptism. As well as the intention there has to be faith.
I think we agree on the first. On your last sentence, I'm not quite so sure. Consider a newborn baby baptized in extremis by a lay person. The faith of the newborn doesn't enter in to consideration. The faith of the lay baptizer? It might be hard to imagine a circumstance in which an atheist would baptize an infant, with water and the threefold name, intending to do what the Church intends, but should such a thing occur, I think it's still a valid baptism.
However baptism is not a magic rite and neither are the other sacraments. It is not the saying of the words alone, but also the intention . Without the intention to baptise the words mean nothing. I think that most people would agree that if an actor played the part of a baptismal celebrant in a film and said 'the magic words' that would not be a baptism. As well as the intention there has to be faith.
I think we agree on the first. On your last sentence, I'm not quite so sure. Consider a newborn baby baptized in extremis by a lay person. The faith of the newborn doesn't enter in to consideration. The faith of the lay baptizer? It might be hard to imagine a circumstance in which an atheist would baptize an infant, with water and the threefold name, intending to do what the Church intends, but should such a thing occur, I think it's still a valid baptism.
Not sure it's that hard to imagine. My recollection is that nurses, many of them non-believers, have often baptised babies where necessary.
May I add a note on JW baptisms? I've been to three or four (because I'm married to an academic whose main field of research is JWs) and they're done without any spoken formula. The ones I've seen have all been at the local annual convention, which I understand is the typical way of doing it. There's a baptism talk given by an elder as the last item in the morning programme, and those to be baptised are asked the questions mentioned in the blog linked to above, and all answer together before going off to change into something suitable to be totally immersed in.
The baptism is public; in the last two or three conventions I've been to it's been in a pool in a room off the main arena, so there's only space for friends and family to watch in person, but the whole thing is shown on a screen in the main arena. It's done during the lunch break, so we all sit there munching our sandwiches - and putting them down to applaud every baptism.
LC the intention to do something needs a faith or confidence that one is doing something for someone. The Church teaches that in an emergency anyone can baptise, but without that person knowing that they are baptising, even if they do not know if they believe the teachings, then it wouldn't be a baptism. Where it would be possible to have a non-believer do the baptism, they must know and 'believe' that they are carrying out an emergency baptism.
If the JW's baptisms are carried out without any words then they are not baptisms, certainly from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church.
That does not mean that the person concerned is not loved by God nor that they will be condemned by God for not following traditional Christian practice.
(In a slightly different but related context I love the story that appears in one of Bruce Marshall's books. He tells the story of a priest visiting an old sailor on his deathbed.
The priest is trying to get the old man to say that he is sorry for his sins. The old man keeps on saying that he is not sorry for all the experiences that he had with women out in the Far East. 'Okay' says the priest, 'can you tell me that you are sorry that you are not sorry ?'
'Yes' says the old man. 'That 'll do', says the priest 'Ego te absolvo............'
Eutychus you have telling me that evangelicals don't believe that baptism washes away sins but rather it is Christ who washes away sins. That second part of your statement is also the Catholic point of view. It is indeed Christ who is at the beginning, the middle and the end of every sacramental action. Baptism is carried out 'in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,'not in the name of the minister of the sacrament. It is our assurance of God's love and our assurance of our acceptance into the family of the Church.
Ray sunshine - yes, that is the book ,although it was known in Scotland as 'All Glory within'
I recommend the same author's book 'A Thread of Scarlet' which has been my constant companion for over 60 years.
@Forthview I understand that; what is important for non-evangelicals to understand is that what can appear to be a cavalier attitude to baptism stems from piety that simply doesn't view the sacraments in the same way.
LC the intention to do something needs a faith or confidence that one is doing something for someone. The Church teaches that in an emergency anyone can baptise, but without that person knowing that they are baptising, even if they do not know if they believe the teachings, then it wouldn't be a baptism. Where it would be possible to have a non-believer do the baptism, they must know and 'believe' that they are carrying out an emergency baptism.
I think we agree. (And following @Arethosemyfeet's suggestion of nurses, I'll imagine a Christian couple who have a baby, intend to have that baby baptized in their church in the usual way, and one day leave him in the care of an atheist friend. If, during that time, something horrible happens, the baby is close to death, and the atheist, knowing the importance that their friends place on baptism, baptizes the baby, thinking "I don't believe God exists, but my friends do, and this is important to them", then I'd call that valid. And should the baby survive, I wouldn't even think a conditional baptism prudent.
Eutychus I would never think of any of your attitudes as 'cavalier'. You have your own ideas and understandings of piety, just as I have mine. Underneath all the externals I think that they are ultimately the same.
Comments
Yes, this is correct. And one can do it (God forbid!) at any point in one's life, hence all those scary passages in Hebrews and elsewhere.
It's not that strange a belief--to the best of my knowledge, the doctrine that goes by "perseverance of the saints" is only prevalent among the heirs of Calvin. RCs, Lutherans, Orthodox-I-think, all admit the possibility of falling away. So baptism is not an automatic, irrevocable ticket to heaven, as some think that we teach.
Just taking up that phrase "regenerated person"--we use this terminology, but with the constant understanding that the sin nature continues to be a hassle to believers until death. The joking way of putting it is that baptism is for drowning the Old Adam, but he's a very good swimmer. So we believe that there are in fact two wills, two natures battling it out inside the Christian, a la Romans 7--which is how it is even possible for said person to commit spiritual suicide and throw away his faith. Not that this happens easily or lightly--the Spirit of God is tenacious, and God is gracious, and will go to extraordinary lengths to keep a person in the faith. But if someone is determined to throw it out, well... (Though in my experience, God's patience stretches out lifelong, and he can grab such a person back at from the very jaws of death. I think this is what happened with my father, who was anti-Christian for so much of his life. I rather suspect the buried seed of his baptism (which he underwent because he thought my mother wouldn 't date him otherwise) finally came to the surface and showed itself. But God knows, not me.
I mention it in case you think I'm postulating that a regenerate person performs unregenerate acts, flying in the face of logic. It's more complicated than that.
I think we're still at cross purposes here. First of all, I'm not at all sure what "eligible" means in the context of baptism. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the only thing that makes one eligible for baptism is being a human being, and therefore someone that Christ died for. Every human being is eligible for baptism, and woe to anyone who refuses it to a requester without an extraordinarily good reason (such as "you've been baptized already, I saw it with my own eyes" or some such).
Could you maybe explain to me in different words what's going on here?
I confess I was taken aback by the idea that anybody (a synod, board, council, or what have you) needed to sign off on someone's baptism. I've never encountered that idea anywhere before. It seems to me rather like signing off on childbirth. Do you have any grounds on which such a group might actually refuse baptism?
I know many Lutherans get freaked out by the idea of re-baptizing someone who was baptized as an infant. It seems to me, from the context in which they discuss it, that they fear that allowing a second baptism will encourage people to doubt their own baptisms and possibly lose faith and comfort in the sacrament altogether. As for myself, I look at the pastoral care bit--meaning, the only folks I run across who want to do this sort of thing are normally people who are emotionally upset and fear that they are somehow disobeying God if they don't redo it as an adult, or in a pool, or with a triple immersion, or some such requirement, and they honestly want to do whatever they think will make God happy. And though I think them mistaken, if they persist in being scared and unhappy, I think it might be better for them to go ahead and set their minds at ease rather than have them go on suffering that way. I can't see why God would mind.
Re the Jehovah's Witnesses, yes, I think we would accept such a baptism. As long as we were clear on the water and the baptismal words, I don't think it would matter who did the administration. Though again, if anyone was in painful doubt, we'd probably do a conditional baptism just to comfort their conscience.
I think your statement is false. JWs do not baptize with a Trinitarian formula, or believe in the Trinity. The link you shared doesn't actually say that they baptize with a trinitarian formula. It is, in fact, quite careful not to talk about what they do when they baptize someone.
ETA: if the former, was this the only Christian baptism that John performed?
That wasn't me, that was @Nick Tamen I think. And now I'm off to bed.
Can we find a definitive answer? @Anteater might know, maybe?
I have a separate but related question arising from the same passage. The baptism of Jesus is in all three Synoptics, but Matthew alone records John’s startled reaction: “I need to be baptised by you, and you come to me?” Jesus refused John’s request, but if he had acceded to it, what difference would that have made to the rite of baptism as practised by the churches?
On top of which we may need to ask why the person wants to be baptised (or, have their child baptised) and why our wee church? There'd be issues if it was just social expectation without any belief in Christ or intention to ever come to church again. If someone was a person of faith, then the questions would be why our church rather than their own church?
It would seem very strange if someone just walked in off the street and asked for baptism for themselves or their child, and the font was immediately filled without some questions being asked other than "what's the name?"
We both seem to be mixing up what others have said with what one another has said (oh dear, my grammar has become remarkably involved, never mind). No, we do NOT baptize infants on the basis of their parents' faith. We baptize them on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection for them personally, and their parents' faith (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it. The only way anyone else's faith plays into the whole baptismal scenario is that we are pastorally reluctant to baptize an infant who has no further access to Christianity once he or she is carried out the church door, because there are no Christians in the family, and no friends, relatives, or godparents willing to take responsibility for nurturing the new young life. But of course in our context (American and especially Vietnamese immigrant) such a thing rarely happens. There is no cultural expectation of baptism as a thing that one does quite unconnected to faith. At the worst there might be a Christian grandmother lurking in the background who wants the baby baptized, while the parents and everybody else are unbelievers. In that case, we have a serious discussion about what they're letting themselves in for, as well as requiring them to commit to providing the child with access to the church and with sponsors (godparents) who will take responsibility for raising the child in the faith. But we won't say no.
As for an unchurched person rocking up to the font and asking for baptism out of the blue, we would first ask him "Why?" and listen to the answer. If it becomes clear that he is doing this because some nut has told him that the Lutheran Church will give him ten thousand dollars (don't laugh, that rumor has gone around!), we will disabuse him of the notion, which usually takes away the desire for baptism as well. If it turns out he is grateful for our help in some difficulty (illness, immigration problem, whatever) and has seized upon baptism as a way of repaying us, we will disabuse him of this notion as well (I usually take care to express a craving for jasmine tea to forestall things like this!). If, however, he shows the slightest desire for baptism as connected to Jesus, we will sit him down in the nearest pew and do a real quick catechesis with the goal of making sure he has in fact heard the Gospel--from us then and there, if not previously. And then we'll baptize him. He's a human being in need who wants it. We have no grounds for refusing him. We cannot judge his faith, and we aren't called to do that. The mere request (with obvious freakiness ruled out) is sufficient to show something is going on between God and him. And I don't want Jesus giving me the hairy eyeball for turning one of his sheep away. We'll do the in-depth catechesis afterward.
Re-baptism is generally forbidden; baptising when you have solid doubts about the validity of any previous actions is not. At least, that's how I'd see it.
There's a lot of talk about technicalities and wording in this thread, but the wider ritual and quasi-ritual elements surrounding the wording are I think at least as important.
The Demasites' baptisms were a classic liberal Reformed service - the baptism was done in an ordinary Sunday service, and after the whole waterish bit, the minister carried the baby up and down the aisle while the congregation sang the Aaronic blessing. It wasn't the words, or the difference between sprinkling, dunking and immersing. The structure of the service emphasised the communal nature of the event. The community, the Church visible not theoretical, was welcoming the new baby into its life.
I've been to friends' and relatives' baptisms from Anglican/CoE backgrounds which were done at a chapel, or a church during the week, with friends and relatives but no congregation. The words were pretty much the same, in fact identical in the obvious places, but the feel of the whole was quite different. It was the family welcoming its newest member, and maybe showing that newest member off to its friends and loved ones. One I remember had the baby girl in a lovely classic white Christening dress.
A baptism done in extremis in a hospital is surely something else as well - something more intimate between parents and God. Partly maybe a reminder by the parents to God: you promised.
All these seem socially (sociologically?) almost different rituals, and baptism as part of the conversion process for adults as a different ritual again!
Or to put it another way, "You call that a baptism? THIS is a baptism."
Do we no longer believe that baptism is for the remission of sins?
The citation from their Bible is
Compare to a more traditional translation (NIV)
Note the difference? The holy spirit is not a person of God in the JW mind.
Growing up in a conservative Lutheran church I also was told we did not accept the LDS baptism either. They baptize in the names of God the Father, God the Son, and God, the Holy Ghost. In the LDS mind, I was told, there were three Gods not a Trinitarian God.
Now I would acknowledge other mainline churches have begun to accept the LDS baptism, but I still prefer to use a conditional baptism in the case of the Mormons
I do. But I think I responded, too.
If this is the case, it gets a bit iffy in my mind. The words are fine (spoken, anyway) and we don't usually bother with the faith or otherwise of the administrator, because that's nonprovable, and in any case, it's God doing his work, and not the human baptizer. But given the murk around both JWs and LDS, I suspect we'd wind up doing a conditional baptism just in case.
But that would be more for comfort than because we have serious doubts about the goodness of God and whether he'd honor a screwy baptism obtained in, er, "good faith."
I thinks this is lovely.
Who's "we"? For my part, I'd like to know more about what you (the Orthodox) believe about baptism as compared with other views expressed here.
That's informative, thanks. It looks as though in a JW's (official) mind, "Holy Spirit" exclusively means the Jehovah's Witnesses as an organisation. The organisation assumes divine status and woe betide anyone going against God (i.e. the organisation). If the Trinitarian formula is used at baptism, the implied meaning is that one is baptised into the organisation as the sole representative of God on earth. That's what one might call an extreme exclusivist position.
I think the comparison with communion that several have made is a germane one. Views on the latter range from transubstantiation to memorialist and seem to have fluctuated over time. To me this suggests a rite with a symbolic value that can to some extent at least be legitimately reinterpreted in multiple ways.
How about you?
I'm not sure you could slide a knife between our beliefs on baptism and those of the Roman Catholic Church.
Where does this idea come from? I search the scriptures in vain for "engage in a meaningful way" as a criteria for anything.
A lot of talk about this whole area seems to be couched in terms of God approaching us and our choosing how to respond to him. That is not my experience at all, many people I know would gladly respond to God if they had any reason at all to suppose he was there and had any interest in them.
If not, what does it mean for baptism and the whole (Pauline) notion of rising (from the waters) into a new life in Christ?
Well, this is why creationists get so excited about it. I think if you're tied to an idea of original sin being some kind of sickness passed on through sexual reproduction from a single infected ancestor, then you could have a problem. On the one hand it's certainly possible (indeed evolution depends on it) for a single de novo mutation to become ubiquitous throughout an entire population, but it takes time and if a putative Adam and Eve were contemporary with lots of other humans then many generations would have to take place before that would become the case and all the lineages not carrying the Original Sin Gene (if you like) become extinct.
I'm not inclined to believe in original sin. The simple reality, to me, is that many behaviours that we might call sinful are ones which give us an advantage. If I steal your food and kill you, then (a) I get your food and (b) you can't steal mine or reproduce. So I'm the one who gets to pass my homicidal tendencies to my children and you don't get to pass yours on. That's why we're tempted to do these things - they give us as an individual advantage. Selfishness is the root of much of what we call sin but selfishness is often a good survival technique. But as we developed as a rational, empathic, social and moral species we became consciously aware of the conflict between what benefits us a person and what benefits others with whom we empathise. Mythologising that with talk of Original Sin, our sinful nature versus our conscience, "I do what I do not want to do" and all that, makes perfect sense.
The whole garden, snake, fruit story strikes me as a good description of what humans are like - give them everything they need, put one button in marked "do not press" and they'll trip over each other getting to the button. Because they want to know what it does.
@mousethief the passage that mentions remission of sins in relation to baptism (Acts 2:38) goes on to say that "those who accepted his message were baptized" (Acts 2:41). These baptisms at least are presented as an informed response on the part of the hearers to what they heard, and they are by no means the only ones presented thus in Acts.
Taking the parallel with the Lord's Supper again, 1 Corinthians 11:29 talks about partakers "discerning the body of Christ" which to my mind suggests an informed response on the part of the communicant, and one that the context suggests is (literally) of vital importance.
However baptism is not a magic rite and neither are the other sacraments. It is not the saying of the words alone, but also the intention . Without the intention to baptise the words mean nothing. I think that most people would agree that if an actor played the part of a baptismal celebrant in a film and said 'the magic words' that would not be a baptism. As well as the intention there has to be faith. In a Catholic baptismal ceremony the first question asked is ,What do you ask of God's holy church ? and the second is 'Do you believe in God, the Father almighty ......etc? (I'm paraphrasing somewhat but these are the essential ideas)
For the idea of washing away of sins we could use the more elegant expression of baptismal regeneration.
Although for many Christians baptism is seen as the entry into the family of the Church and the way to begin our journey towards sainthood ,we are aware of the tendency to fall into sin. However we describe sin, it is selfishness and there is no-one who is more selfish, perhaps because one is helpless ,than a baby.
Surrounding the ceremony of baptism there is the giving of a white garment, not an essential part of the ceremony but a reminder to the newly baptised or to those making themselves responsible for the newly baptised that it is our job as we go through life to keep that white garment unspotted and unstained.
I am sure that there will be people who have made a declaration of faith and committed once and for all their life fully to Christ, with or without believer's baptism, who will have re-evaluated their life style and fallen away.
No evangelical denomination I know believes this, although some of the rank and file might assert it in a non-thought-out way. Evangelicals see believers' baptism as a testimony to the baptisee believing and confessing that Christ has 'washed away their sins', not something that happens through the rite itself. What it is understood to mean in terms of church/Church membership varies.
(One of my takeaways from this discussion (in addition to @chrisstiles memorable "we are all infants at baptism" line) is the comment, I think by @Nick Tamen, about the church making a commitment towards the newly baptised, as well as the other way around. That's given me food for thought).
Absolutely, but aside from the intention of the baptiser, what counts for proponents of believers' baptism is the intention of the baptisee. Their position would be that in matters of salvation, one cannot have faith by proxy for somebody else (and indeed that would be my position).
Yeah, selfish little bastards, wanting to survive. Send the fuckers to Hell.
Seriously, what an absolutely batshit statement. A baby hasn't the mental furniture yet to understand that other people like itself in any way even exist. And people wonder why the world thinks Christians are off their heads.
The tendency to sin is present within all of us.
Prepare the way? Like they'd be Hellbound without the Church's help?
In particular I raised the question upthread of an adult who has never been baptised( eg my mother who lived to 92, married to a full time Christian worker and fully involved in that work, but originally in the Salvation Army). Did it, does it matter that she was unbaptised as a Christian?
A whole bloody can of worms. What about people who were baptised but lost their faith. What about those who never had any in the first place? Not everyone has the mental furniture in place to believe in a being for whom there is scant evidence. To many people it appears blindingly obvious that it's a load of cobblers. According to many, God has apparently absolutely no conception of how hard he is to actually believe in and gets really baitey with people who can't do it.
For @Eutychus are you so determined that the church congregation won't become a clique of the self-perpetuating that you exclude the children of the members from it - in which case where are they if they die before reaching years of discretion, and don't most Christian parents want to do their best to bring up their own children in the faith. Is that wrong?
And for all of us who belong to churches that baptise babies, were probably baptised ourselves before we can remember and quite likely confirmed as a matter of form, how do we mark coming to faith? What do we think about our fellow babies whom we know as adults have not persevered as saints.
And for those who claim that Baptism is 'just' a symbolic sign, which only represents th washing away of sins, without actually doing so, do we really believe that is how the Ethiopian eunuch or the Philipian gaoler understood it.
Years ago I read a learned work but I can't remember who by, which inter alia produced quite a lot of evidence that the church of 100-500 AD was by no means as unanimous as most people claim it was in support of their various - and incompatible - modern positions.
As so often on these threads and as I've said before, I think @Lamb Chopped has talked a lot of good sense.
Meanwhile, changing to a lighter note, and hoping it's not scratching something painful, @Puzzler did you marry your ordinand? Dropping a reference like that casually into the conversation has, I'm sure, left us all wondering.
If I had not felt the need and desire to become an Anglican, for my own reasons, not just for my then fiancé’s sake, I suspect I might have remained unbaptised too. I missed the boat, so to speak, by not being born into a family where infant baptism is the norm, I didn’t take up the opportunity as a teenager in a Baptist church, nor was it suggested to me post- conversion, as that did not apply. So actually it might easily not have happened. I suppose it might have been a barrier to church membership, but theologically I can’t see it makes any difference.
I certainly don’t consign the unbaptised to hell!
I think we agree on the first. On your last sentence, I'm not quite so sure. Consider a newborn baby baptized in extremis by a lay person. The faith of the newborn doesn't enter in to consideration. The faith of the lay baptizer? It might be hard to imagine a circumstance in which an atheist would baptize an infant, with water and the threefold name, intending to do what the Church intends, but should such a thing occur, I think it's still a valid baptism.
Not sure it's that hard to imagine. My recollection is that nurses, many of them non-believers, have often baptised babies where necessary.
The baptism is public; in the last two or three conventions I've been to it's been in a pool in a room off the main arena, so there's only space for friends and family to watch in person, but the whole thing is shown on a screen in the main arena. It's done during the lunch break, so we all sit there munching our sandwiches - and putting them down to applaud every baptism.
If the JW's baptisms are carried out without any words then they are not baptisms, certainly from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church.
That does not mean that the person concerned is not loved by God nor that they will be condemned by God for not following traditional Christian practice.
(In a slightly different but related context I love the story that appears in one of Bruce Marshall's books. He tells the story of a priest visiting an old sailor on his deathbed.
The priest is trying to get the old man to say that he is sorry for his sins. The old man keeps on saying that he is not sorry for all the experiences that he had with women out in the Far East. 'Okay' says the priest, 'can you tell me that you are sorry that you are not sorry ?'
'Yes' says the old man. 'That 'll do', says the priest 'Ego te absolvo............'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World,_the_Flesh,_and_Father_Smith
I recommend the same author's book 'A Thread of Scarlet' which has been my constant companion for over 60 years.