Baptism

BrianCalgary

Lets discuss the validity of infant vs. adult baptism and the purpose and function of baptism within the Christian faith and your own denomination.

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

Lets discuss the validity of infant vs. adult baptism and the purpose and function of baptism within the Christian faith and your own denomination.

Well, as a Buddhist baptisim does not apply to me. However, prior to this I was a Roman Catholic and it did. I have to say, I do not remember anything about my own Baptism other than I was told I kicked up a hell of a racket during the ceremony--could that have been Karma knocking on the door?:rolleyes:
This brings me to my main beef with the issue. Excelsior took time out to explain Baptism from his perspective and I am in agreement with his concept. I believe that if you are to adopt the Christian faith, Baptism forms an integral part of that faith and there should be no issue with getting Baptized. Where I draw the line is expecting an infant to have any knowledge off, or even have the ability to make a commitment, to the faith. I find this to be absurd. I cannot help but feel that the idea of the immortal dangers of dieing with the stain of original sin and going to Limbo, was nothing more than a scare tactic perpetrated by the ancient church to lock in members using of all things fear. IMHO, Baptism should only be entered into by mature adults who are capable of understanding their faith and making the appropriate commitment. It should be very clearly explained what Baptism stands for and they should do it with joy and appreciation. This holds true for any commitment made within any religious body.

bmoferrall

I've experienced both extremes of this issue.
As the child of Catholic parents I was baptized and confirmed before I was mature enough to make an informed decision.
I also had a brief flirtation with a church that was convinced baptism is essential for salvation, and that the baptism had to be performed (or reperformed) by them (I believe the church has since folded); there are plenty of instances in the NT where salvation, and filling of the Holy Spirit, takes place before, or without, baptism. I would simply argue that a Christian is called to follow Jesus' example, and that includes baptism by immersion (after conversion), in a public setting. It's symbolic in the same way that circumcision was symbolic for Jews in Old Testament times; in the latter case, circumcision was specifically commanded for infants.

Asiaprod wrote:

...Where I draw the line is expecting an infant to have any knowledge off, or even have the ability to make a commitment, to the faith. I find this to be absurd. I cannot help but feel that the idea of the immortal dangers of dieing with the stain of original sin and going to Limbo, was nothing more than a scare tactic perpetrated by the ancient church to lock in members using of all things fear. IMHO, Baptism should only be entered into by mature adults who are capable of understanding their faith and making the appropriate commitment. It should be very clearly explained what Baptism stands for and they should do it with joy and appreciation. This holds true for any commitment made within any religious body.

I think that sums it up very well.

At a stretch, you could justify infant baptism based on a couple of instances in the NT where the entire household of a believer was baptized at the one time. Unfortunately, the NT doesn't go into any great detail about these incidents.
I'm aware of only two recorded examples (though I stand to be corrected), the first involving Cornelius, and the second Lydia.
Cornelius was a Centurion, so possibly on duty away from his permanent home. Lydia was a businesswoman, travelling at the time of her conversion. In both cases, it's conceivable that they were living in temporary accommodation, and thus unlikely to have travelled with young children.
That amounts to no more than speculation on my part. Either way, it seems like a very weak basis on which to legitimise infant baptism. There's no explicit recorded example in the NT of a child being baptized by immersion, and no explicit command for infants of believers to be baptised.
Jesus waited until he was a mature adult before being baptized, and we are called to follow his example.

I would argue that the fate of an infant is in God's hands, and cannot be influenced by the ceremonial sprinkling of water on the infant's head. I think the following passage may be relevant (Romans 9 for full context):

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[c] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[d] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

I would see infant baptism as a human-inspired ritual - harmless maybe, but of questionable value from a Christian point of view.

Excelsior

I am a paedo baptist (maybe I should get that on a t-shirt? ). The Covenant that began between God and Abrahm was fulfilled in the Christ, Jesus. Since that day, babies have been baptised.

What happens when they are baptised has nothing to do with them or with human intervention at all. It is about God's promise to render himself in pieces should we fail to meet our terms in the Covenant (see Gen 15). It is about God going through with that on the Cross. God says of all children, that this is my child, who I love.

I believe adults should be baptised if they weren't as children when they come to faith. I think this is what happens in the New Testament. Now when my friends are baptised as adults it is a massive celebration, a social landmark. They are declaring something about themselves for all to see. But as I see it, God is the one who is actually at work at baptism. He is making the blessing. We are not initiating the blessing but he is.

As a digression, I follow Karl Barth, who wrote in his book on Prayer that whenever it comes times to assessing a theology, the first step is to look at where God is. If man is in the centre, instead of God, then you can know easily that there is a problem. I fear that in many cases, the expression of adult baptism is man-centred.

I think both views are legitimate expressions of faith grounded firmly in the Bible and practiced throughout church history. But my covenant driven theology and my high view on God's soverignity drive me to accept paedo-baptism over the adult baptist model.

One final contextualisation- I think most of the "Christenings" that take place in the Irish Catholic church today are empty rituals devoid of God-meaning and merely opportunities to mark the birth of a child generally. Baptising a child makes no sense at all if their parents do not intend to raise them as Christians in the setting of an ekklessia.

John Doe

About man being the centre-point of some adult baptisms instead of God: I'm not sure I see how humans can avoid being at least part of the centre-point of any ceremony that they take part in. Do you have any examples? I know in paedo-baptism the child certainly isn't the most important part because it doesn't know what's going on, but I think the ceremony is about the parents really. It just doesn't make sense to me that humans could be part of any ritual without that ritual being mainly about them. It is, after all, these humans' idea of God that is being put forward as the other possible main element.

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

I am a paedo baptist (maybe I should get that on a t-shirt? ).

Ha-ha, go on I dare you to:) . I would seriously think though that a lot of people in this day and age would missunderstand the paedo bit:rolleyes:

Excelsior

John Doe wrote:

It is, after all, these humans' idea of God that is being put forward as the other possible main element.

You work from the assumption that God is always a psychological projection, a creation of humanity. Christians believe that they are creations of a living God who has revealed himself.

He renamed Abrahm as Abraham with the seal of the covenant in the form of baptism and paedo-baptists believe baptism is the seal of the fulfilled covenant. Baptism is about God because it is the actual living God saying "I will be your God and you will be my child" just as he once said to Israel "I will be your God and you will be my people".

John Doe

But even a living God is only known to humans through the medium of their own mind (like everything else, I suppose). There really isn't any difference between a God that's a psychological projection and a God that is real, except from the God's point of view, which is unknowable.

BrianCalgary

John Doe wrote:

But even a living God is only known to humans through the medium of their own mind (like everything else, I suppose). There really isn't any difference between a God that's a psychological projection and a God that is real, except from the God's point of view, which is unknowable.

This is where I disagree with you. God is known to humans because He has made Himself known, through His word (the Bible) and through Christ. Without that revelation, He is unknowable because I don't think humankind could possibly come up with a God that is beyond understanding in the trinity and righteousness. The gods of Rome, Greece and from what I know Norse mythology are all so human in their actions and traits.

The God of Christianity is not human, He is greater.

With baptism (this is where I respectively disagree with Excelsior on the timing), the Holy Spirit is involved and a celebration occurs as the candidate is washed by the Spirit. I know I felt differently when I came up from the water. I understood exactly what I was doing as an adult whereas a child can not comprehend the miracle that is happening. In order to obtain membership in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, adult baptism is a must as it is the sign to the world that you have accepted Christ as your saviour for the repentance of your sins.

Excelsior

Once again Brian, I am amazed at how Christians are able to exclude each other. I am not simply someone who defines Christian as someone who tries to be nice. I am a card-carrying (although well hidden at the back of my wallet) evangelical who has been born again, is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and who believes in the supreme authority and infallibility of Scripture. Yet, all that and my skills (those mad skillz to pay the billz) would leave me unqualified to work for your organisation because I have a completely legitimate alternative reading of baptism.

Is your organisation any different in making this secondary issue primary than a missionary group who forces everyone to believe in 6 day creationism?

hairyheretic

Possibly this should be spun off to a separate thread, but I'd like to enquire further on some of this non baptism related stuff

BrianCalgary wrote:

This is where I disagree with you. God is known to humans because He has made Himself known, through His word (the Bible) and through Christ. Without that revelation, He is unknowable because I don't think humankind could possibly come up with a God that is beyond understanding in the trinity and righteousness.

I don't understand what you're saying here. How is the nature of the trinity and righteousness beyond human understanding?

BrianCalgary wrote:

The gods of Rome, Greece and from what I know Norse mythology are all so human in their actions and traits.

How do you find their actions any different to the ones of your own god? I'm familiar with stories where each has shown human characteristics .. love, hate, anger, sadness, joy, amusement ... where is the difference?

BrianCalgary wrote:

The God of Christianity is not human, He is greater.

That could be said of any deity.

BrianCalgary

Excelsior wrote:

Once again Brian, I am amazed at how Christians are able to exclude each other. I am not simply someone who defines Christian as someone who tries to be nice. I am a card-carrying (although well hidden at the back of my wallet) evangelical who has been born again, is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and who believes in the supreme authority and infallibility of Scripture. Yet, all that and my skills (those mad skillz to pay the billz) would leave me unqualified to work for your organisation because I have a completely legitimate alternative reading of baptism.

Unforunately, within the Alliance church, Yes. We are sometimes known for our stuffiness. I like to shock them periodically as well, by actually stating that Catholics can go to heaven. That is why we have different denominations so that the secondary issues don't prevent us from belonging to a Christian church.

I would never exclude someone with your interpretation of baptism from Christianity and it is sad that there are those that would.

Excelsior wrote:

Is your organisation any different in making this secondary issue primary than a missionary group who forces everyone to believe in 6 day creationism?

I guess not. But, it would depend on approach. We have people who are active participants within our body who have never been baptised and are very welocme at our church. In order to become a voting member adult baptism is a necessity. Now if you were to say don't even come unless you are baptized, now that is an issue.

John Doe

Here is a postulation: the God of Christianity may or may not have been created by humans but he is definitely conceived by humans.

BrianCalgary wrote:

God is known to humans...

Yes he is, and because of this he is in the human mind. Though a God may have his own existence he/she/it is the only one that can be sure of this existence. I believe thus that no God is more a psychological projection than any other God: we can all go around believing that our God is real, but the very nature of the word believe puts us once again within the realms of the human mind.
Admittedly, we can't go around using this method to classify everything, because it would be kinda frustrating ("That is a table. Or at least, my mind is telling me it is a table..."). However, on the subject of a God we don't have (cannot have) proof, so belief comes into it more than most things e.g. the aforementioned table. What I am trying to say is that any event in our relationship with God, no matter what religion we are, is all about us. We believe in our God, for us he is just a psychological projection. For himself he may of course be more, but that is irrelevant unless you get inside God's head. (I presume he knows we're not just psychological projections of his own, having created us and all...:eek:) This is why I think baptism as a ceremony is all about we humans.

robindch

> I like to shock them periodically as well, by actually stating that Catholics can go to heaven.

Out of interest, what other statements shock them? And how do they manifest this shock? And do you collectively attempt to resolve the shocking issue, and if so, how? In the semi-decentralized religious organization you operate within, I'd be quite interested to hear how power is derived and influence is exerted.

> In order to become a voting member adult baptism is a necessity.

Why? Who does this benefit?

I'm asking because I thought that baptism was something or other metaphorical between you and the god of your religion, but from this it looks like it's rather something you have to do to gain voting rights. Are there any other public statements that members of your religion must make in order to gain influence within it?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Out of interest, what other statements shock them? And how do they manifest this shock? And do you collectively attempt to resolve the shocking issue, and if so, how? In the semi-decentralized religious organization you operate within, I'd be quite interested to hear how power is derived and influence is exerted.?

We have about 1100 people that go to our church. So it depends on who you are talking to adn the level of shock. The idea of a woman preaching would set some off. The idea of doing a bible study in a pub would set others off. Dancing can and can't be OK with others.

Manifestation is different. With the catholic incident a parent wrote a letter to the pastor warning how I was indoctrinating our kids with what he perceived as Catholic evils. This same guy says KJV only and is quite the fundamentalist. A chat occured and I still teach and his son still comes.

The structure of our church is congregational. We elect a board of elders which has the respnsibility of hiring pastors and making sure the church runs in the direction the Holy Spirit guides. Lay leaders are given positions based on their giftings and heart. All kids leaders go through a police check. I wouldn't use the terms power and influence. Our pastoral staff and elders set the direction we go and would influence the lay workers in their positions. I pretty well get free reign now that I have been at it for so long and I'm trusted.

robindch wrote:

Why? Who does this benefit?

I'm asking because I thought that baptism was something or other metaphorical between you and the god of your religion, but from this it looks like it's rather something you have to do to gain voting rights. Are there any other public statements that members of your religion must make in order to gain influence within it?

To be a member you sign that you have read and understood the statement of faith. Baptism is the outward declaration of your acceptance of Christ as your saviuor. The reason for the above is to prevent a group of unbelievers signing up and voting to sell the building and shutting down the church (I'm using an extreme scenario happening), whereas we know that the members who do vote at our general meetings have the interest of the church at heart and have shown that through baptism and the agreement to the statement of faith.
BTW as any organization getting a quorum is difficult.