|
prezy
|
1#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2650
Posts:125
Registered:06/02/2007
|
(Date Posted:14/09/2007 01:15:35)
Reply to : Glad-to be out
OK guys, here it is a new thread !! Knock yourselves out !!Infant sprinkling - the "loaded language" of the GRC, so Noelish. I must ad that it has to be almost spat out and said with utter contempt.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I believe, that Christening of babies played a very important role in a devout couple's wish to see their child enter the kingdom of Heaven after it died, usually at a very tender age. No conspiracy, nothing sinister. The exceptionally high rate of infant deaths, meant that children were committed to God, by caring and carefully selected God
I remember the first time at grc noel performed his little ritual of dedicating babies. I thought it a bit rich to bag the crap out of the established Church for christening babies to just replace it with his own version, but I guess he has a better way of all things lol. Strongly agree with your comments Glad. Also our pastor/teacher gave us a good argument for infant baptism with scriptual backing, but certainly doesnt see it as essential. Get some more info if I remember.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person........
|
|
MothandRust
|
2#
|
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610
Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
|
(Date Posted:14/09/2007 04:27:40)
My mother is a dedicated Catholic and I used to bash her mentally for it for a tragic 17 years. She likes her tongue-speaking hoodashaking charasmatic group and she and they roll their eyes at the 'Mary' zealots and their ilk. She is dedicated to her church and possibly the most Christian person I know. As boring a conversation as this was with my mum... she does like to talk (I think I may get that from her).
On infant baptism, she says they don't pretend that indiscriminate infant baptism can be defended from within scripture, although the following evidences of bible support for the baptism of children from Christian families. All the while accepting that there is no watertight case from scripture either for or against the practice, the real question may be, does the Bible specifically exclude infants and children from Baptism? It doesn't!
The two sacraments of the old covenant (circumcision and passover) were administered to the children of believing families and there is adequate continuity between the two covenants to children and family of Christian families.
Romans 4:11 - and a sign he did receive of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith in the uncircumcision, for his being father of all those believing through uncircumcision, for the righteousness also being reckoned to them,
Whole families were baptised
Acts 16:15 - When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.
Acts 16:33 - At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.
I Cor 1:16 - Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.
Age of reason?
The bible is silent concerning children raised by Christians reaching an age of reaon and then being baptised. One story involves converts from Judaism but for children of believers there's no explicit mention of baptism... as babies or later. Sooooo.... on what basis would you think the believers of children should be baptised at all? It would be contrary to historical Christian practice but then so is rejecting infant baptism. The New Testament, although not explicit, doesn't ignore the subject:
Luke 18:15-16 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God."
Ian, by "little children" does it mean 'The Magical age of reason' and over? When Christians speak of 'bringing people' to Jesus, do they mean leading them to faith? Jesus said even infants can be 'brought" to him. Even Revivalists don't claim their practice of "dedicating" babies does this. How do you bring children to Jesus without the baptism ritual? Is it dependant on the grey area of 'The age of understanding?'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
|
Glad-to be out
|
3#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:14/09/2007 06:17:46)
Reply to : MothandRust Yep, the Bible doesn't EXCLUDE and I believe that the baptism of families in the apostles time must have included children and infants.
Mark 16:16 says, "Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved."
Therfore throwing in another part to the equation of Salvation, if Salvation comes at repentance and not baptism, couldn't any Christian who has been baptised as an infant confidently say at repentance that, "I BELIEVE and I HAVE been baptised!!"
Cheers,
Glad
My mother is a dedicated Catholic and I used to bash her mentally for it for a tragic 17 years. She likes her tongue-speaking hoodashaking charasmatic group and she and they roll their eyes at the 'Mary' zealots and their ilk. She is dedicated to her church and possibly the most Christian person I know. As boring a conversation as this was with my mum... she does like to talk (I think I may get that from her).On infant baptism, she says they don't pretend that indiscriminate infant baptism can be defended from within scripture, although the following evidences of bible support for the baptism of children from Christian families. All the while accepting that there is nowatertightcase from scripture either for or against the practice, the real question may be, does the Bible specificallyexcludeinfants and child
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
(Date Posted:14/09/2007 06:34:09)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
5#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:14/09/2007 08:28:34)
 Reply to : pilinut Fairdinkum, I am almost at the point where I find your constant harping about the Jewish people nuts!!! Here was your chance to say something about Infant Sprinkling, a subject that we know you have very strong opinions on, and yet you allowed your obsession with the Jewish people and the treatment of same to become the focus of your post.
You are very selective with the information that you choose, just like the GRC. This is cut and pasted from a study on the Cossack Rebellion, seems my Orthodox buddies came away from the stoush mortally wounded as well.
"The years of the Cossack rebellion are inscribed with bloody letters in Jewish history. Considered representatives of the hated Poles, the Jews fared badly. The years 1648 and 1649 were ones of destruction and devastation for Eastern European Jewry. In Belarus, an army of 100,000 peasants rose and in a sweeping drive overcame Gomel, Loev, Pinsk, Mogilev and Mstislavl. The government moved an army against them, but defeated in one place the rebels emerged in another. Soon the cities of Slutsk, Bychov, Chernobyl, Recica, Bobrojsk and Mozyr fell into their hands. Wherever they passed, they murdered Catholics, Uniates and Jews. They burned churches and synagogues, plundered and destroyed private homes. When Prince Radziwell finally suppressed the revolt, he retaliated by the wholesale extermination of the Orthodox population in the cities of Mozyr and Turov.[3] "
To save you the embarrassment of coming across plain crazy, I will point out that you know some of my family history!!
MY SON MARRIED A UKRAINIAN GIRL, MY SON DECLARED TO HER FAMILY, "ALL 5000 OF THEM", THAT HE WAS HALF JEWISH BY BLOODLINE, CHRISTIAN BY CHOICE AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY COULDN'T GIVE A SHIT!!! HE DID DECLARE HIS BLOODLINE BECAUSE HE KNOWS HOW PEOPLE PARTICULARLY FROM THAT PART OF EUROPE FEEL ABOUT JEWS.
I WOULD RATHER PARTY WITH OUR UKRAINIAN FRIENDS THAN SOME EX REVIVALISTS WHO HAVE SUCH A WARPED VIEW OF SOCIETY. YOU ARE LIVING IN A TWILIGHT WORLD OF STEREOTYPES.
WE MIGHT SIT BY THE DOORS FROM NOW ON, JUST IN CASE THEY TURN ON US !!
WENT TO THE NETHERLANDS IN MARCH WITH MY SON AND HIS WIFE, PAID TRIBUTE TO THE HOLOCAUST AT ANNA FRANK HOUSE IN AMSTERDAM, VERY MOVING. WENT ON TO GERMANY, THE AVERAGE PERSON THERE IS CONSUMED BY GUILT ABOUT THE ATROCITIES THAT THEIR FATHERS PERPETRATED. LIFE MOVES ON AND WE AT LEAST TRY TO MOVE WITH IT. YOU DON'T FORGET, BUT YOU DON'T OBSESS EITHER.
MY SUGGESTION TO YOU IS EITHER DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE, SUCH AS JOINING A GROUP THAT HELPS WORLD JEWRY, OR GET HELP TO OVERCOME THE GUILT THAT YOU SEEM TO HAVE TAKEN ON BOARD PERSONALLY WITH REGARD TO THE TREATMENT OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE OVER THE CENTURIES.
GLAD
PS. WITH THE AMOUNT OF JEWISH BLOOD MY KIDS HAVE IN THEM, THEY WOULD HAVE GONE INTO THE OVENS ALONGSIDE THEIR FATHER. PERSECUTION EXISTS, BIGOTRY EXISTS, THE PEOPLE WE KNOW, IN ALL THE COUNTRIES WE HAVE FRIENDS, HAVE RISEN ABOVE IT. INCLUDING THE JEWISH WAITER AT THE KOSHER RESTAURANT WE WENT TO IN MELB. ON FATHER'S DAY ,WHEN I WORE A LOVELY PIECE OF JEWELLRY I HAVE. A FASHION STATEMENT ONLY, AN ORTHODOX CROSS DESIGNED AND MADE IN RUSSIA. WHOOPS !!!!
OH AND BY THE WAY, UKRAINIANS AND RUSSIANS DON'T REALLY LIKE OR TRUST ONE ANOTHER AND AREN'T NECESSARILY ALLIES.
DO YOU MIX WITH OTHER PEOPLE MUCH???????
Reply to : Glad-to be outFrom JEWISH LITERACY by Rabbi Joseph TelushkinAlthough few people today know about it, there was a Nazi-like war against the Jews three centuries before the Holocaust.The Chmielnitzki massacres of 1648-1649 were led by Bogdan Chmielnitzki, a Ukranian Cossack who led a successful revolt against Polish rule over his country. Because many Jews worked for Polish noblemen who owned land in the Ukraine, Chmielnitzki's ire was also directed against the Jews. Like Hitler, Chmielnitzki hated all Jews indiscriminately. It is estimated that the Cossack troops murdered well over 100,000 Jews at a time when world Jewry probably numbered no more than a million and a half.The following contemporaneous description vividly portrays the atrocities that occurred in a typical Chmielnitzki massacr
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
6#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
(Date Posted:14/09/2007 14:36:57)
Reply to : Glad-to be out et al
Glad, I just want to say thank you for sharing your background and story with us here. I'm really not sure why the pillinuts raised the issue of the persecution of Jews and what it has to do with infant baptism?
Moth, your mum sounds like a very cool lady. I've been honoured to meet so many people lately from many denominations and churches. I am so glad that I now see the bigger picture and past all the separation and segregation of the old RF way. We can all learn so much from and encourage each other as we share our stories and our faith.
All, re infant baptism - we need to absolutely forget everything we were ' taught' by unqualified oversight in the past and read again for ourselves and listen to those who are qualified to teach us.
God bless, Urch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
7#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:16/09/2007 02:56:22)
Reply to : Glad-to be out
Good morning, 'Glad' & 'Zion'.
Zion's questions first:
What is water baptism?
The Christian rite of applying water to the body so as to identify with Jesus Christ and his Church corporately.
Infant or Adult?
Both.
Sprinkle or immersion?
Sprinkling, immersing or pouring, depending on the individual circumstances.
Is baptism necessary for salvation?
No.
Can a person be baptised by anyone?
Anyone who is Christian. Some denominations restrict the candidates to ordained ministry, principally for the sake of order.
Do we have to get re-baptised if we find a new Church after being baptised in Revivalism?
That would depend. If you were baptised prior to believing in Jesus Christ, then the baptism was invalid (the "I had nothing to lose..." bit from many peoples' testimonies). If you didn't understand why you were being baptised (i.e. to transfer self-'ownership' to Christ, and to his Church), then your baptism was invalid. If you weren't a Christian (as opposed to a 'tongues-speaker') prior to being baptised, then the baptism was invalid. But if, when you consented to being baptised, you believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, your Saviour and Lord, and that he died for you; then the baptism was perfectly valid.
And now for the comments from 'Glad':
I believe, that Christening of babies played a very important role in a devout couple's wish to see their child enter the kingdom of Heaven after it died, usually at a very tender age. No conspiracy, nothing sinister. The exceptionally high rate of infant deaths, meant that children were committed to God, by caring and carefully selected Godparents who made certain promises on the child's behalf and also committed themselves to making sure that the child was brought up a devout member of whichever religion it was born and then Christened into.
That is certainly part of the reason. The principle reason, however, had to do with identification corporately with a Christian Church. From the earliest days, baptism was understood to be the continuance of the Jewish rite of circumcision: the introduction of infants into the Community of Faith. However, baptism served simply to identify. The rite of Confirmation served to 'cement' the corporate identification with one of personal commitment to the faith.
Maybe it was to make the parents feel better when their child passed away at an age well before they were able to repent and make the committment to Christ themselves. Yes, it is a custom or ritual that has been carried on in church tradition to this day , not purely scriptural, but it is hardly a satanic ritual or even an unChristian one.
Actually, the rite is perfectly valid from a scriptural perspective.
When you reject the Baptism of infants it is because there is no scripture that specifically includes them in this ritual, but equally the Bible doesn't specifically exclude them from Baptism either. The main argument against it is the fact that infants can't repent, this is the role of the Godparents, the repentance is done by proxy.
The issue of repentance is simply one part of the purpose for being baptised. The principle point remains one of identification. During the first and second centuries, when a Jew or a Greek submitted to being baptised, and thereby identifying with Jesus Christ and his Church, then he or she was effectively cut-off, root-and-branch (including children) from the safety of his or her former social community (Synagogue or Polis). Christian baptism was 'counter-cultural', and led to the complete severing of community and familial ties, and from protection under both Jewish and Roman law. One became, to all intents and purposes, a social, legal and economic outcast. So, when parents had their children baptised, and we have direct records of them doing so as early as the early second century (less than 20 years after the death of the apostle John at Ephesus), they were not entering into the rite lightly!
My son was married in the - wait for it - Ukrainian Orthodox Catholic Church. The service was edifying and spiritually uplifting. The Christenings we have attended are joyous, spiritual events. The love of God and Family celebrated on these occasions is both breathtaking and awe inspiring in the celebration of not only Christ and the Holy Trinity, but also of life, marriage and the extended Family.
'Yep', the Orthodox ceremony has a way of bringing out a much fuller perspective of what baptism purports to be than does the strictly 'symbolic' rite of many Protestant churches.
The traditions that we have been exposed to have enriched our lives and made us marvel at the diversity of "edifying" (this is also loaded language) ways that man can pay homage to his Maker.
Absolutely!
I guess I am trying to say, that no matter what you call it, "Infant Sprinkling" is a pretty spiritually moving experience and while it is not literally scriptural, I believe that it was deemed necessary ( maybe misguidedly) by devout Christians, trying to ensure that their children's souls were safeguarded in a time when life was so precarious.
To be biblical, one shouldn't refer to it as 'infant sprinkling', which is simply a 'Revivalism'. Personally, I refer to all baptisms as Christening--making one with Jesus Christ and his Church!
It has remained an important ritual in many religions. Condone it or condemn it, it exists as part of church life for millions of people worldwide.
Funny that, hey? Revivalists claim it invalid, yet it is practised by Roman Catholic, National Orthodox and Protestant communions alike, from America to Africa, Australia to Europe. In other words, it seems to be pretty 'universal' so far as I can tell!
Life and religion cannot always be viewed in either black or white, there are shades of grey, which give depth and vitality to every experience.
Contra to Revivalist claims, biblical Christianity isn't one dimensional and 'flat'.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Didaktikon
|
8#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:16/09/2007 03:29:23)
Reply to : MothandRust
Good morning, Pete.
Ian, by "little children" does it mean 'The Magical age of reason' and over? When Christians speak of 'bringing people' to Jesus, do they mean leading them to faith? Jesus said even infants can be 'brought" to him. Even Revivalists don't claim their practice of "dedicating" babies does this. How do you bring children to Jesus without the baptism ritual? Is it dependant on the grey area of 'The age of understanding?'
First, isn't it funny that the very few Protestant churches who don't accept the baptism of children universally substitute the same with a 'dedication ceremony'?! And just what, precisely, is a 'dedication ceremony'? Well, I'd offer that it is nothing short of a baptism ceremony but without the water!
Anyway...
When Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come to me," he was stating that they were not to be forbidden from him. Jewish belief was that children were 'justified' before God via their fathers by proxy. The head of the household served as the mediator between God and the people in his household--hence his role in the offering of regular sacrifice. What Jesus was stating was that the children weren't 'justified' simply by relationship with their earthly fathers through proxy, but also with him directly. The pivotal fact of this is the Christian Church--Christ's Body physically present in reality.
The 'age of understanding' comes into play when the child makes an informed decision at Confirmation.
Has this helped?
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
9#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:16/09/2007 04:20:54)
Reply to : Didaktikon  Thank you for taking the time to explain, I do appreciate it. When I was using the term "Infant Sprinkling" I realise that it is the loaded language of the Revivalists. I was being a bit sarcastic. Trouble with computers, you can't hear the inflection or tone of voice!! Edify ing is a normal word, but when used by a person from the GRC, it becomes part of their "loaded language vocabulary".
I have been Christened, Confirmed (both High C of E) and then Baptised. I understood and made my stand for Christ when I was Confirmed.
GRC baptism was a bit of overkill. Brolga has, I see from his posts, been there and done that in the C of E. He now feels the need to be baptised again.
The GRC experience leaves you questioning every experience that you had prior to the GRC, totally confused with regard to your experiences while in the GRC and then questioning again every experience when you leave.
I am now able to look back on my Confirmation lessons and the service and realise that it was a pretty spiritual time and experience. More so than in the GRC with everyone pushing for baptisms at any cost so that they can earn brownie points.
I guess in B & S's eyes I am now a backslider of monumental proportions.
My daughter is about to marry a non practising Roman Catholic!!
The shades of grey again.
Thanks again Ian, I really enjoy reading educated, knowledgeable, unbaised commentary.
Cheers,
Glad
Reply to : Glad-to be outGood morning, 'Glad' & 'Zion'.Zion's questions first:What is water baptism?The Christian rite of applying water to the body so as to identify with Jesus Christ and his Church corporately.Infant or Adult?Both.Sprinkle or immersion?Sprinkling, immersing or pouring, depending on the individual circumstances.Is baptism necessary for salvation?No.Can a person be baptised by anyone?Anyone who is Christian. Some denominations restrict the candidates to ordained ministry, principally for the sake of order.Do we have to get re-baptised if we find a new Church after being baptised in Revivalism?That would depend. If you were baptisedpriorto believing in Jesus Christ, then the baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
(Date Posted:16/09/2007 05:11:40)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
11#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:16/09/2007 10:00:47)
Reply to : brolga Hi, definitely wasn't criticising, just stating that we share common experiences, and then thinking out loud that you want to be baptised again. I think adding a bit of personal stuff helps to give a bit more depth to the posts and helps us understand where the person is with regard to their recovery.
Certainly understand what you mean when you hear "loaded language", it flips you back in time and for me has the "fingernails down the blackboard" effect and the additional kneejerk reaction that I automatically think, "Are you for real?"
As this is a "what we used to believe " in the GRC etc, - it is interesting reading the sanctification / justification through their father's proxy that Ian mentioned in his answer to Moth.
It was Noel's warped interpretation of this and my lack of understanding of the Bible and acceptance of him as a knowledgeable servant of God, that saw me a captive of the GRC for an additional 14 years on top of the 2 already served.
As for the dedication services that Noel replaced Christenings with, I am sure that the poor parents felt guilty, because he always stressed, that we had to wait until there was a sufficient number of children so that time wasn't wasted, taking the "saints" away from the "real" purpose of the Sunday meetings. So, we had heaps of eager parents, and not so eager children and babies. I wonder if the parents of the children that Noel "holds up to the Lord" feel more blessed, while the others feel slightly disappointed to have Gerard et al pray for them?
 I'm glad Ian takes time from his "majoring" to spend some time here. It's good to be able to ask questions and not be fobbed off or told to "seek the Lord". Sometimes a straight answer is the go!! I would say that there are a lot of exGRCers who are "church shy" and possibly find the answers to the questions enlightening and challenging.
Cheers,
Glad
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
prezy
|
12#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2650
Posts:125
Registered:06/02/2007
|
(Date Posted:16/09/2007 11:13:44)
Reply to : Glad-to be out
We were ripped off bad; peter bloody morgan dedicated our little feller. Nice enough guy but, well , pretty lame.
Reply to : brolga Hi, definitely wasn't criticising, just stating that we share common experiences, and then thinking out loud that you want to be baptised again. I think adding a bit of personal stuff helps to give a bit more depth to the posts and helps us understand where the person is with regard to their recovery.Certainly understand what you mean when you hear "loaded language", it flips you back in time and for me has the "fingernails down the blackboard" effect and the additional kneejerk reaction that I automatically think, "Are you for real?"As this is a "what we used to believe " in the GRC etc, - it is interesting reading the sanctification / justificationthrough their father's proxy that Ianmentioned in
--------------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person........
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
(Date Posted:16/09/2007 12:04:22)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
(Date Posted:16/09/2007 12:07:57)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
For Zions Sake
|
15#
|
Rank:Newbie
Score:520
Posts:23
Registered:17/12/2006
|
(Date Posted:23/09/2007 10:49:54)
Reply to : Didaktikon
Thanks for your reply Didaktikon-ian.
I must say that it is extremely difficult to let go of my original beliefs and understanding. I guess I'm still wearing the 'Revival' colored glasses. 
What is water baptism?
The Christian rite of applying water to the body so as to identify with Jesus Christ and his Church corporately.
...or the Body of Christ?
Infant or Adult?
Both.
I'm working on this one (see below)
Sprinkle or immersion?
Sprinkling, immersing or pouring, depending on the individual circumstances.
Is baptism necessary for salvation?
No.
So, not necessary, but is it not a commandment? Is it rebellion if a person does not get baptised?
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Can a person be baptised by anyone?
Anyone who is Christian. Some denominations restrict the candidates to ordained ministry, principally for the sake of order.
In the following post, you state that the various Revival groups are not 'Christian churches', yet there are many individual Christians. How can I be sure that I was baptised by a true Christian rather than a non-Christian?
http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=443300&CategoryID=411155&startcat=1&ThreadID=2854143
Do we have to get re-baptised if we find a new Church after being baptised in Revivalism?
That would depend. If you were baptised prior to believing in Jesus Christ, then the baptism was invalid (the "I had nothing to lose..." bit from many peoples' testimonies). If you didn't understand why you were being baptised (i.e. to transfer self-'ownership' to Christ, and to his Church), then your baptism was invalid. If you weren't a Christian (as opposed to a 'tongues-speaker') prior to being baptised, then the baptism was invalid. But if, when you consented to being baptised, you believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, your Saviour and Lord, and that he died for you; then the baptism was perfectly valid.
Now I'm confused. How can an infant be baptised if the person being baptised is required to understand, be a Christian, consent to and believe?
Greetings from Zion
--------------------------------------------------------------
For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest.... Isa 62:1
|
|
Didaktikon
|
16#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:24/09/2007 02:30:45)
Reply to : For Zions Sake
Good morning, 'Zion'.
Thanks for your reply Didaktikon-ian.
You're certainly welcome.
I must say that it is extremely difficult to let go of my original beliefs and understanding. I guess I'm still wearing the 'Revival' colored glasses.
'Yep'. Indoctrination will do that to you!  However, "knowledge dispels fear", and ultimately, "the truth will set you free". Accepting the possibility (actually, 'certainty') that you have been misled, doctrinally, during your time in Revivalism is the starting point necessary to building a biblical theology which will lead to a mature Christian understanding of Scripture and a robust personal faith. The process of 'un-learning' can be painful, it will often be confusing, but it will certainly prove to be rewarding.
What is water baptism?
The Christian rite of applying water to the body so as to identify with Jesus Christ and his Church corporately.
...or the Body of Christ?
Which is the Church corporately, as I clearly stated above. Baptism is a rite. It is a ritual, and it is a corporate ritual at that.
Infant or Adult?
Both.
I'm working on this one (see below)
Sure.
Sprinkle or immersion?
Sprinkling, immersing or pouring, depending on the individual circumstances.
Is baptism necessary for salvation?
No.
So, not necessary, but is it not a commandment? Is it rebellion if a person does not get baptised?
I think you might yet be confusing the issue of 'salvation' for 'discipleship'. The former involves God's action in forensically justifying a sinner and declaring him or her righteous, thereby 'saving' one. The latter, however, involves the now 'saved' sinner consciously conforming to the corporate expectations of 'discipline' which is involved in identifying with, and being part of, the Community of Faith.
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?... Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Ah, but first read Acts 10:33 through 43, noting especially verse 33: "...Now therefore, we are all here in the presence of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord." Consequently, Peter launches straightway into a presentation of the gospel message, but note that nothing whatsoever is mentioned about baptism--as it isn't a 'salvation' issue (contra the nonsense that you were taught in the GRC). Also notice that after God forensically justified Cornelius and his household, thereby declaring them righteous via the impartation of his Spirit, the initial standard requirement of corporate discipleship came into play--submission to baptism. Further, did you happen to notice that Peter's question was directed at the Jewish Christian believers who had accompanied him, and not to Cornelius (who served as the pater familiaris of his household)? Do you understand why this was so? The answer is quite simple: baptism is the outward rite which leads to a person being publicly accepted, and included, into the social group which is the Christian Church corporately gathered (so, v. 47). Do you now see? Salvation and the discipleship rite of baptism remains a case of separability and one of subsequence/consequence.
Can a person be baptised by anyone?
Anyone who is Christian. Some denominations restrict the candidates to ordained ministry, principally for the sake of order.
In the following post, you state that the various Revival groups are not 'Christian churches', yet there are many individual Christians. How can I be sure that I was baptised by a true Christian rather than a non-Christian?
You can't  But I would offer that such is of little real consequence in any case, because the issue remains one of discipleship. If you had accepted Christ as your Saviour, if you were a believer before you consented to being baptised, then you undertook the rite in faith that it was the proper and appropriate thing to do. God honours such faith. When all is said and done, you're not accountable for the spiritual standing or status of the person who baptised you, merely your own. Again let me reinforce that baptism serves principally as a rite of identification. It is for this reason that my response, above, was twofold: the reason that I said that anyone who is Christian can baptise another (thereby addressing the outward discipleship issue), but that many denominations restrict the candidates to ordained ministry ( principally for the sake of order). The latter ensures, as much as in humanly possible, that someone of recognised and approved Christian faith and character is doing the 'discipling' 
Do we have to get re-baptised if we find a new Church after being baptised in Revivalism?
That would depend. If you were baptised prior to believing in Jesus Christ, then the baptism was invalid (the "I had nothing to lose..." bit from many peoples' testimonies). If you didn't understand why you were being baptised (i.e. to transfer self-'ownership' to Christ, and to his Church), then your baptism was invalid. If you weren't a Christian (as opposed to a 'tongues-speaker') prior to being baptised, then the baptism was invalid. But if, when you consented to being baptised, you believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, your Saviour and Lord, and that he died for you; then the baptism was perfectly valid.
Now I'm confused. How can an infant be baptised if the person being baptised is required to understand, be a Christian, consent to and believe?
But I wasn't referring to infants in my above response  The question specifically mentioned those who were "...baptised in Revivalism". Consequently, my response was directed at 'adult' conversions The issue of the baptising of children relates more directly to the social covenant overtones inherent in the rite, and to the issue of 'household' conversions under the authority of the pater familaris. Consequently, the baptising of infants and/or young children is a completely different issue. I will offer the following in the hope that it provokes further thought which should lead to further discussion: if baptism isn't a 'salvation' requirement, and if baptism is principally an issue of corporate identification with Christ and his Church, then what could possibly prevent the inclusion of the children of believing parents in the rite?
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
For Zions Sake
|
17#
|
Rank:Newbie
Score:520
Posts:23
Registered:17/12/2006
|
(Date Posted:11/10/2007 12:30:16)
Reply to : Didaktikon
I must say that it is extremely difficult to let go of my original beliefs and understanding. I guess I'm still wearing the 'Revival' colored glasses.
'Yep'. Indoctrination will do that to you!  However, "knowledge dispels fear", and ultimately, "the truth will set you free". Accepting the possibility (actually, 'certainty') that you have been misled, doctrinally, during your time in Revivalism is the starting point necessary to building a biblical theology which will lead to a mature Christian understanding of Scripture and a robust personal faith. The process of 'un-learning' can be painful, it will often be confusing, but it will certainly prove to be rewarding.
Thanks again for your response. I have been deeply contemplating, trying to sort out what is truth. That, of course, has raised more questions, which I intend to post shortly. You're right, the process of un-learning is painful and confusing. I feel that I'm finally beyond the painful but drowning in confusion! 
Blessings from Zion
--------------------------------------------------------------
For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest.... Isa 62:1
|
|
For Zions Sake
|
18#
|
Rank:Newbie
Score:520
Posts:23
Registered:17/12/2006
|
(Date Posted:26/10/2007 11:02:49)
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I found this convo in the 'Shout Box' between Didaktikon and frank extremely interesting and it kinda filled in some spaces I still have in my head concerning the meaning and purpose of baptism...
I have flipped it so you can read from top to bottom, from oldest to newest...rather than the other way....just to make it a bit easier 
|
24 Oct 07, ffice:smarttags" / onload='javascript:showImageWidth(this,600,600)' class='AutoImageWidthTopic' style='cursor:poionter'>16:23ffice ffice" / onload='javascript:showImageWidth(this,600,600)' class='AutoImageWidthTopic' style='cursor:poionter'>
Didaktikon: Frank. I think you've altogether missed the point: the substance of the gospel doesn't focus on sociological matters, but on ontological ones. You still present as being very much distracted by social dysfunction, and altogether oblivious to what's of greatest import. What gives? Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:24
frank: Not sure what you mean don't understand the term ontological. |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:25
Didaktikon: Frank. Relating to the nature of 'being'. In other words, to what it is that a Christian 'is', and how he or she 'becomes' such. Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:28
frank: So can you please make your point in reference to Gal 1 from an ontological perspective, because having Fee fresh in mind , he is more than clear on what was happening at a socialogical level. Who was who and what they were up to. |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:31
Didaktikon: Frank. Paul was confronted by Judaisers who changed the very substance of the gospel (i.e. 'ontologically') by subverting it from being a simple message of grace, to a command requiring 'works'. I.e. one was not a Christian unless he had been circumcised, kept the purity laws etc. Now remove circumcision and the purity laws, and insert 'baptism by immesrion', 'speaking in tongues', 'obeying the oversight', etc, etc. Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:40
frank: Ok I get you. How am I going to handle this? How will it play out in my life. Well tonight I'm speaking on part 2 ' the person of the Holy Spirit' and secondly on Sunday for the umptienth time I covered off with the church on the some aspects of Luther and others emphasis on the priesthood of every believer. With respect to Obey them that have the Rule over you, well if there's one thing that Viola has done is to expand on that one in a wonerful way with the oppropriate Greek. (next) |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:41
frank: As for baptism, I'll still take a lot of convincing that to expect any thing less of a believer as being unscriptural. |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:43
Didaktikon: Frank. I'd be more interested to discover whether or not you accept that the RF preaches, teaches and/or promotes 'another (i.e. false) gospel to begin with. As for baptism, for about the hundreth time, it's an issue of Christian discipleship and not Christian conversion. Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:44
frank: ok |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:45
frank: Discipleship and Coversion- Got it! I haven't had you point out the difference to me, that must been another pleb and onother time. |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:46
Didaktikon: Frank. 'Okay'? To which bit? The RF false gospel, or baptism? Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:47
frank: By the previous response I guess it's RF false Gospel. |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:48
Didaktikon: Frank. Okay, that being so, what are your intentions? Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:49
frank: especially once you help me with the Descipleship / Conversion question. Is there something in please consider? |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:50
frank: Forgetting the banner over the door, Christ is my head. |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:50
Didaktikon: Frank. Not that I can remember. In simple terms, discipleship follows conversion, it doesn't precede it. Consequently, baptism follows Christian conversion too, it does not precede it (which is clearly the case in the Revivalist scheme of things). Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:51
Didaktikon: Frank. Sure. But what do YOU tell people they need to do to enter into a saving relationship with God? Do you preach the RF false gospel yourself? Ian |
...to be continued...
--------------------------------------------------------------
For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest.... Isa 62:1
|
|
For Zions Sake
|
19#
|
Rank:Newbie
Score:520
Posts:23
Registered:17/12/2006
|
(Date Posted:26/10/2007 11:08:14)
|
24 Oct 07, ffice:smarttags" / onload='javascript:showImageWidth(this,600,600)' class='AutoImageWidthTopic' style='cursor:poionter'>16:55fficeffice" / onload='javascript:showImageWidth(this,600,600)' class='AutoImageWidthTopic' style='cursor:poionter'>
frank: this gets funny I think we know the order of these posts howvere the answers are coming before the questions for those reading, I'm sure they'll work it out. |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:56
Didaktikon: Frank. Further, one enters into a meaningful relationship with the Godhead through conversion. Discipleship simply serves to deepen that relationship. Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:56
frank: Oh dear...... I'm having a meltdown.......................I thought it was enough to begin to comprehend the person of the Holy Spirit, I just finished a 20 day fast. |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:57
Didaktikon: Frank. This is very simple (read 'basic') stuff. Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:58
frank: might be simple for you ! |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:59
Didaktikon: Frank. Now you've yet to respond to my previous question about what YOU tell people, and whether or not YOU preach the RF's false gospel yourself. Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 16:59
Didaktikon: Frank. Put it this way: the simplicity of the message is such that the simplest people have been grasping it for almost 2,000 years. Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:03
frank: yes I know on Sunday I preached I Corinth / Ephesians, the Cross & The Mystery. I'm only at the stage of telling the church that we have fallen into the same trap of the Corinthians , overemphasising the tongues. Hence the Chap 13, really applies to us, if we don't wake up we are nothing more than tinkling brass and sounding cimbals. |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:04
Didaktikon: Frank. Okay. But here's the acid test: what does one have to do to be saved? What's involved? Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:05
frank: Believe in Jesus |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:06
Didaktikon: Frank. Cool. Does one need to have/show 'tongues' to be saved? Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:06
frank: Believe in the work of the cross |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:08
frank: No you do not, but to be able to pray in tounges and the understanding surtainly helps in praying in the Holy Ghost. |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:08
Didaktikon: Frank. And baptism? Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:10
frank: If one wants to be a disciple of Jesus then you need to be baptised |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:10
Didaktikon: Frank. Congratulations, you've just acknowledged the historic and orthodox Christian position on salvation Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:11
frank: I knew the apostles crede would come in handy one day |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:12
frank: so much for me addressing the answers asked by RFOT. |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:12
Didaktikon: Frank. Big fella, it's proven itself handy since 325 AD! But now you face something of a quandry. The RF neither believes nor teaches what you've just acknowledged Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:13
frank: mmmmmmmmmm |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:14
frank: yes we will find that interesting, I'm looking forward to part 2 of ' person of the Holy Spirit ' tonight anyway..... |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:15
Didaktikon: Frank. Anyway, I'm off! Methinks you have some soul-searching to do. Cheerio, Ian |
|
24 Oct 07, 17:15
frank: mmmmmmmmmm |
--------------------------------------------------------------
For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest.... Isa 62:1
|
|
|
