Mode of Baptism

[Luce NDs]

Assuming that I'm interpreting you correctly - neither do I believe that baptism "is a conduit for God to shovel his grace through." As a means of grace, it makes grace visible. I also like your statement that Baptists see baptism as a performance. So it is with infant baptism. It is a performance of God's grace being poured out on one who is totally undeserving of that grace. God doesn't have to "shovel" grace "through" anything. Grace is there.

I must be honest. I have a rather low view of baptism. I could never be a Baptist! I think that baptism - while potentially valuable - has been abused and distorted throughout the centuries and used primarily to create unnecessary divisions between Christians.

Sort of like selling white-washing of whatever's fenced? Enough to blanch the humble gods that are subtle compared to mortal ones ...

These thing make me wish to danse satyrs ... like serving literature rather that using it as a weapon to achieve something that wasn't intended aura Lee ... just another stage of the eternal thing-Y ...

 

[Jaebius]

Assuming that I'm interpreting you correctly - neither do I believe that baptism "is a conduit for God to shovel his grace through."

shovel was Chunnel.

As a means of grace, it makes grace visible. I also like your statement that Baptists see baptism as a performance. So it is with infant baptism. It is a performance of God's grace being poured out on one who is totally undeserving of that grace. God doesn't have to "shovel" grace "through" anything. Grace is there.

Okay, but that's different than the Baptist view of immersion - in which God is not active giving grace. The actors are rather the pastor and the baptized who are acting out what they believe God has already done in the heart of the baptized.

must be honest. I have a rather low view of baptism. I could never be a Baptist! I think that baptism - while potentially valuable - has been abused and distorted throughout the centuries and used primarily to create unnecessary divisions between Christians.

Yep.

 

[Northwind]

Here is another perspective:
a young woman, baptized as a child, goes through confirmation and makes her public profession of faith as a young adult. Then becomes involved with a community that practices believer's baptism and is told that she would have to be baptized there. Except her previous baptism and profession of faith and upbringing in that community (in this case UCCan) is in fact of great value/meaning/validity to her and she has no real desire to say otherwise.

What would you say?

I was that young woman once. I chose to continue to participate in the church I was attending and not become a member. You know where I ended up.

 

[Luce NDs]

Borderline attribute as a line to be stepped over to allow balance between 2 po*oles?

That bridge between that behind and what amon eventually has to face ... the cunning of god essence? The advocate said to raise a stink in the PEW ... fair moans?

 

[revjohn]

Can you be baptised more than once

Clearly the answer is yes, you can be baptized more than once.

and why would you?

Or maybe, why should you?

Speaking to would. The only values for a second baptism that I can discern is personal satisfaction, having a sense of accomplishment, perhaps to make somebody else happy or the niggling fear that God was not present in the first covenant.

In those cases it wouldn't matter how deep the baptismal font is because theologically those reasons are shallow.

Personal Satisfaction replaces a gift of grace with human effort. It is the very heart of works righteousness.

Sense of accomplishment is more about ticking boxes and doing the religious thing without considering at all the relationship dimension.

To make somebody else happy does pay attention to the relationship dimension. It really doesn't speak to the relationship between the one being baptized and God though does it? Unless it is God standing in front of us and speaking plainly that he wasn't present the first time around because he never got an invite.

The niggling fear that God was not present in the first covenant is more about us humans dictating God's terms. It isn't about God's grace so much as it is about dictating when and how God's grace may flow. Not a very gracious starting point. I mean if God's grace flows freely because God so wills it where does humanity arrive at the conclusion that they can say, with conviction, that God's grace was or is not present simply because you were baptized wrongly?

Again, read up on Donatism, that great heresy of the past. Was the Church right to declare it a heresy or should the Church have affirmed it as being of God?

Speaking to should. This is the harder argument.

Certain passages in scripture, specifically New Testament texts, indicate that there was in the early church a distinction between John's baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Is the fundamental difference between these two baptisms one of mode only? Is the Holy Spirit present more in the one than in the other?

Jesus, baptized by John, has the Holy Spirit descend upon him. Believers baptized by the Holy Spirit are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Is the baptism of the Holy Spirit better than the baptism that Jesus submitted to? Does Jesus need the Holy Spirit to indwell him when he stands as the second person of the Trinity and is no more, nor any less than the Holy Spirit itself?

Does the Holy Spirit indwelling any believer make that believer a greater power in the universe than Jesus before or after his baptism?

From a Christian perspective where do we hear John baptizing Jesus in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? Should we be insisting that Jesus not be subject to a "proper" baptism since that is in question?

Other considerations arise.

Which baptism is the "official" baptism? Is it the one that is most recent or the one that was done in the proper form?

Suppose I, baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian Church of Canada decided to join a Baptist congregation and was told that in order to properly be Christian I would have to submit to their baptismal forms and I agree. Does the latter covenant with God eradicate the earlier covenant with God? How do we know? And after I live out my life and die I am baptized by the Mormon Church. Does that most recent covenant subvert other covenants or does my being present physically matter more than the baptismal forms?

 

[Jaebius]

The only values for a second baptism that I can discern is personal satisfaction, having a sense of accomplishment, perhaps to make somebody else happy or the niggling fear that God was not present in the first covenant.

Why was I credobaptized in the Baptist church when I had previously been paedobaptized in the United Church...

Was it personal satisfaction? No - because I did not become more righteous by doing the work. God had already made me righteous.

Was it sense of accomplishment? In what way did I fail to consider the relationship dimension? I was professing that which I value as the most important relationship to me - that between God and I.

Was it to make somebody else happy? Others were happy, but to make them so wasn't why I was immersed. I'm actually incapable of making others happy anyway.

Was it to ease a "niggling fear?" No.

I was baptized in the Baptist church to honor Christ by publicly professing my faith.

 

[revjohn]

I was baptized in the Baptist church to honor Christ by publicly professing my faith.

While baptism is a public profession of faith. All public professions of faith are not baptism.

See, here now I proclaim that Jesus the Christ, Son of God and God in human flesh is my Master, Saviour, Redeemer and Lord.

No water needed.
No baptismal form needed.

[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]It remains a public profession of faith.

Now, if a congregation can accept that but will not acknowledge my infant baptism they are not actually interested in my profession of faith so much as they are interested in the form.

That is theologically shallow.[/FONT]

 

[Waterfall]

Was "baptism" originally considered a part of the purification rites in Jewish culture as means of sanctification by God?

The Essenes "baptized", some twice a day, is this ritual the same as what we call baptism?

John says that the one after him will baptize by fire (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit, do we need to baptize with water then?

 

[Jaebius]

While baptism is a public profession of faith. All public professions of faith are not baptism.

Well obviously. However, professing one's faith on Wondercafe2 is not an ordinance of the church.

See, here now I proclaim that Jesus the Christ, Son of God and God in human flesh is my Master, Saviour, Redeemer and Lord.

No water needed.
No baptismal form needed.

Beautiful, wonderful, praise God.

[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]It remains a public profession of faith. Now, if a congregation can accept that...[/quote]

Accept that as what exactly John?

...but will not acknowledge my infant baptism they are not actually interested in my profession of faith so much as they are interested in the form.

That is theologically shallow.[/FONT]

You had faith at the time you were paedobaptized? You were professing said faith by being baptized as an infant?

 

[Waterfall]

Also I'm reading that rabbis were the ones that usually did full immersion? I was thinking that this made sense for Jesus and John, but for everyone? Did John baptize everyone by full immersion?

 

[Jaebius]

Did John baptize everyone by full immersion?

Since baptizo means to immerse, we can safely answer yes - John only baptized by full immersion.

 

[Mendalla]

Since baptizo means to immerse, we can safely answer yes - John only baptized by full immersion.

And he was baptizing standing in a river, something that he would not have needed to do if he was "sprinkling" or just rubbing some water on. He could have just hauled a pot of water up on to the shore for that.

 

[revjohn]

Well obviously. However, professing one's faith on Wondercafe2 is not an ordinance of the church.

You are missing the point. It is a profession of faith. If I type it here or stand there in the midst of your congregation it is a profession of faith. If I say it in solitary confinement or on a world-wide stage it is still a profession of faith.

Your Church does not condemn or prohibit it.
My Church does not condemn or prohibit it.

Both Churches would acknowledge that it is a profession of faith and a thoroughly Christian profession of a Christian faith at that.

Here is where things get different.

If you did that here at Waterford United and expressed a desire to become a member of the congregation as you did so you would get the right hand of fellowship immediately and we would add your name to the roll of the Church. You would then have all the rights, privileges honours and duties of full membership.

If I did that in your congregation they would want to know how I was baptized.

So the emphasis is not on the actual profession of faith is it?

It is about the visible sign.

Accept that as what exactly John?

A public profession of faith. And even if they don't accept it being typed here but it needs to be verbalized there fine. If I verbalized it in the midst of your congregation it would be a public profession of faith. And yet if I wanted to be a member I would have to disown my earlier baptism, deny that God has any part of it and be properly baptized to the satisfaction of your congregation which believes, apparently, that they dictate terms for God participating in God's own covenants.

You had faith at the time you were paedobaptized? You were professing said faith by being baptized as an infant?

No. I professed no faith. My parents professed theirs and God entered into covenant based on that. I stand here today, able to profess a Christian faith in Christian terms without being soaked properly as Baptists understand it. Is my faith authentically Christian or has it only been a charade?

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?”

15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.

16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[a] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

 

[Waterfall]

And he was baptizing standing in a river, something that he would not have needed to do if he was "sprinkling" or just rubbing some water on. He could have just hauled a pot of water up on to the shore for that.

Jesus was Jewish, so I will offer this......"Mikveh"

http://essene.com/B'nai-Amen/MysticalImmersion.htm

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2456-baptism

 

[Tabitha]

You know I don't think it matter to God at all. Don't some denominations I think Salvation Army even not practice Baptism at all?


and just curious-what would a Baptist church think about someone who was baptized by immersion as an infant? That's what the Greek and Ukrainian Orthodox churches do. The babies are dunked.

 

[revjohn]

You know I don't think it matter to God at all. Don't some denominations I think Salvation Army even not practice Baptism at all?

The Salvation Army practices infant dedication but not Baptism. They do not, as far as I aware, celebrate the Lord's Supper either.

and just curious-what would a Baptist church think about someone who was baptized by immersion as an infant? That's what the Greek and Ukrainian Orthodox churches do. The babies are dunked.

They are also given their first communion as part of the whole celebration.

 

[Jaebius]

You know I don't think it matter to God at all. Don't some denominations I think Salvation Army even not practice Baptism at all?

The Army neither baptizes nor participates in communion.


[quote="Tabitha]and just curious-what would a Baptist church think about someone who was baptized by immersion as an infant? That's what the Greek and Ukrainian Orthodox churches do. The babies are dunked.[/QUOTE]


Again for Baptists, the question would be, has the person been baptized by immersion in obedience to Christ as a public profession of faith.

 

[Luce NDs]

Thus non encompassing OXO!