|
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums
Aimoo Forum List |
Ticket |
Today |
Member |
Search |
Who's On |
Chat Room | Photos | Help |
Sign In |
|
| Title: Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? | |
| Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Revival Doctrines we 'USED TO BELIEVE' | Go to subcategory： |
| Author | Content |
|
Glad-to be out
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Date Posted：13/09/2007 2:48 PMCopy HTML 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 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. 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 carriedon in church tradition to this day, not purely scriptural, but it is hardly a satanic ritual or even an unChristian one.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.My son was married in the - wait for it - Ukrainian Orthodox Catholic Church. The service was edifying and spiritually uplifting. The Christenings we have attendedare 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. 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.There was no coersion on the part ofthe Orthodox Church for my sonto convert, he only needed to proclaim that he was a Christian andhad been Baptised in the name of Christ. ( the priest had a lot of trouble trying to work out what a "born again", Pentecostal, Bible Christian was - no Denomination there!!!!) My sondidn't need to be baptised again, because the priest realised,even if Noel doesn't, that once you have been Baptised in the name of Christ, IT IS FOR LIFE. 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) bydevout Christians, trying to ensure that their children's souls were safeguarded in a time when life was so precarious.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. 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.Cheers,Glad "Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
prezy
|
Share to:
#1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：14/09/2007 7:15 AMCopy HTML 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. ¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MothandRust
|
Share to:
#2
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：14/09/2007 10:27 AMCopy HTML 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.
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:
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?' Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Glad-to be out
|
Share to:
#3
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：14/09/2007 12:17 PMCopy HTML 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
"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：14/09/2007 12:34 PMCopy HTML
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Glad-to be out
|
Share to:
#5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：14/09/2007 2:28 PMCopy HTML
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.
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???????
"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sea Urchin
|
Share to:
#6
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：14/09/2007 8:36 PMCopy HTML 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
|
Share to:
#7
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：16/09/2007 8:56 AMCopy HTML 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 email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：16/09/2007 9:29 AMCopy HTML 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 email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Glad-to be out
|
Share to:
#9
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：16/09/2007 10:20 AMCopy HTML Reply to : Didaktikon 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
"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：16/09/2007 11:11 AMCopy HTML
Hi Gtbo, Thankyou for mention me, I post those silly little comments and later feel "oh I shouldn't have put this or that" it's personal and not important, it's things I have to deal with myself. I still talk to a friend Tom H, who still attends RF (after coming out of GRC) and his thinking is still the same, though he is beginning to see through the tongues issue a bit, tongues not salvation etc. However talking over a cup of coffee this morning in the cafe' about past events he asked what year was it that I "left the Lord", meaning of course the GRC. When one hears comments like that, it still has an adverse affect, The question whether one feels they want to be baptized for the correct reason, I guess lies within ones own conscience I would say? brolga. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Glad-to be out
|
Share to:
#11
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：16/09/2007 4:00 PMCopy HTML Reply to : brolga 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?
Cheers, Glad "Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
prezy
|
Share to:
#12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：16/09/2007 5:13 PMCopy HTML We were ripped off bad; peter bloody morgan dedicated our little feller. Nice enough guy but, well , pretty lame. ¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#13
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：16/09/2007 6:04 PMCopy HTML
Glad, I knew you weren't criticising, I was thankful you gave me a mention. Yours, Ians and must say, others posts have given me much needed answers that I couldn't satisfy with my own searching. Also I do pray a lot. brolga
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#14
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：16/09/2007 6:07 PMCopy HTML
prezy, None of my kids wanted to be "dedicated". They must have known something I didn't at the time brolga |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For Zions Sake
|
Share to:
#15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：23/09/2007 4:49 PMCopy HTML 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? ...or the Body of Christ? I'm working on this one (see below) 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.
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
Now I'm confused.
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
|
Share to:
#16
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：24/09/2007 8:30 AMCopy HTML 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 email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For Zions Sake
|
Share to:
#17
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：11/10/2007 6:30 PMCopy HTML 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
|
Share to:
#18
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：26/10/2007 5:02 PMCopy HTML 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
...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
|
Share to:
#19
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：26/10/2007 5:08 PMCopy HTML
For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest.... Isa 62:1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IHOP
|
Share to:
#20
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：23/12/2011 8:54 PMCopy HTML On the topic of "Baptism" check this out.
http://www.news.com.au/national/mum-loses-biblical-row/story-e6frfkvr-1226229754277?from=igoogle+gadget+compact+news_rss
Girl's baptism banned by judge after court battle Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/mum-loses-biblical-row/story-e6frfkvr-1226229754277#ixzz1hOROYhXq A COURT has been forced to intervene in a bitter dispute between estranged parents over whether their seven-year-old daughter should be baptised. A magistrate decided she could not yet be baptised, the Herald Sun reported. He determined that the girl should make up her mind about being baptised when she was older. In a judgment published this week, the Family Court dismissed an appeal from the mother against the ruling. It ruled against overturning orders preventing her from changing her daughter's surname to a hyphenated name and provided for the girl to spend alternate Christmases with her dad. Family Court Justice Stephen Thackery ordered the mother pay the father's costs because of the minor nature of the issues and her lack of success. "A party who chooses to agitate minor matters on appeal runs the risk they will be required to meet the costs they have forced the other party to incur," he said. The woman told the Family Court the magistrate had erred in law in making his decision that the child could not yet be baptised. Justice Thackery said the mum failed to demonstrate the magistrate's decision was clearly wrong. The magistrate who originally heard the case said the little girl had been asking about baptism and the mother believed it would help her fit in at school if she were baptised. "In my view, it is not necessary for (her) to be baptised in order to 'fit in'," the magistrate had ruled. He said the father was not religious and believed a decision about baptism should be left until the girl was older so that she could have proper input. "I consider that is it not necessary for (the child) to be baptised at this early stage. Given the conflict between the parents on this issue, and given her tender age, this process can be safely left to a later date." Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/mum-loses-biblical-row/story-e6frfkvr-1226229754277#ixzz1hORKMBZ6 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#21
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：23/12/2011 10:46 PMCopy HTML Good morning, IHOP.
It would appear the issue had less to do with Christian baptism (whether 'paedo' or 'credo'), and more to do with unresolved hostility and open conflict between two divorced adults. The impression that I got after reading the article, and reflecting on its implications, was that the parents of the girl were simply squabbling over who got their 'way'; the religious angle was completely secondary. In any case I wonder if the Family Court Magistrate properly understood what Christian baptism invokes and involves? I've no doubt that the parents didn't. Thanks for pointing out the article, it certainly was interesting. Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WillemIV
|
Share to:
#22
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：03/01/2012 8:29 PMCopy HTML Reply to IHOP On the topic of "Baptism" check this out. http://www.news.com.au/national/mum-loses-biblical-row/story-e6frfkvr-1226229754277?from=igoogle+gadget+compact+news_rss Girl's baptism banned by judge after court battle Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/mum-loses-biblical-row/story-e6frfkvr-1226229754277#ixzz1hOROYhXq A COURT has been forced to intervene in a bitter dispute between estranged parents over whether their seven-year-old daughter should be baptised. Thanks for that. It sounds like a very sensible ruling by the court. A person should be old enough to make up their own mind before getting baptised. Not sure what age that would be of course, maybe 50+ |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Biblianut
|
Share to:
#23
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：03/01/2012 11:47 PMCopy HTML Just as
the parents had their children circumcised, as a show as belonging to the Nation
of Israel and God’s covenant with them, so it is with Christian baptism; an
outward sign of being a part of the new covenant in Christ. It is not
a case of reaching an age of understanding before a child of believing parents
is baptized, but is the right of the parents that their children be brought up
in the training and instruction of the Lord and baptize the children as being a
part of the new covenant with clear conscience and they have acted reasonably
toward their children. When the child reaches an “age of understanding”, it has
the choice to make its own decision to continue in the things of God or not. So far as
the topic has to do with it, as said, it has more to do with the parent’s
conflict with each other rather than the girl’s eternal welfare.
I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Biblianut
|
Share to:
#24
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：04/01/2012 12:00 AMCopy HTML Further to my last, read the previous posts for better explanation. I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MrGrits
|
Share to:
#25
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：12/01/2012 6:55 AMCopy HTML Biblianut,
I think you'd find it very difficult to make a case from the bible that baptism isn't by full immersion in water on people old enough to make their own decision. Baptism also has nothing to do with circumcision. Both men and women are baptised but only men can be circumcised. Also circumcision was a requirement under the Old Testament law but baptism is a requirement under the New Testament law. Mr Grits |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Biblianut
|
Share to:
#26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：12/01/2012 12:41 PMCopy HTML Mr Grits, I think you'd find it very difficult to make a case from the bible that baptism isn't by full immersion in water on people old enough to make their own decision. Baptism also has nothing to do with circumcision. Both men and women are baptised but only men can be circumcised. Also circumcision was a requirement under the Old Testament law but baptism is a requirement under the New Testament law. I think you'd find it very difficult to make a case from the bible that baptism IS, in every case, by full immersion in water. I was pointing out the substance of Old Testament covenant as a means of identifying those that belong to Please take up Ian’s challenge and come up with some sound biblical evidence to back your claims instead of just your opinion and hearsay? It’s becoming a bit monotonous. I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MrGrits
|
Share to:
#27
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：28/01/2012 1:47 AMCopy HTML Biblinut, I think the case for baptism by immersion IS very strong. The Greek word clearly points to immersion and EVERY passage that talks about baptism in the New Testament involves people old enough to make the decision for themselves. Ian has talked about household baptisms but his argument is based on silence. NONE of the passages he refers to mentions babies / children / slaves being baptised ANYWHERE. 's just assumes they were. I stand by my earlier statement that New Testament baptism and Old Testament circumcision are two totally different things. We're not under law but under grace. Mr Grits |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：28/01/2012 7:13 AMCopy HTML Hi, Grits.
I almost missed this one :) I think the case for baptism by immersion IS very strong. Well, of course you think so. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you believed otherwise. The Greek word clearly points to immersion and EVERY passage that talks about baptism in the New Testament involves people old enough to make the decision for themselves. First might I inquire, which Greek word do you believe 'clearly' points to immersion? Second, the New Testament is largely written from the perspective of 'first generation' converts. That is, it addresses the situations and circumstances of people who were being introduced to something completely new. It's for this reason that it's largely silent about what occurs for those who were raised in Christian environments. Oh, excepting for books such as Hebrews, of course, which are of themselves quite instructive about such matters. Ian has talked about household baptisms but his argument is based on silence. NONE of the passages he refers to mentions babies / children / slaves being baptised ANYWHERE. 's just assumes they were. Not particularly, and mine isn't a case of argumentum ex silentio at all. The orthodox Christian position that I champion rests on an informed understanding of the historical and cultural contexts underpinning our subject. For example, the nature of Jewish and Greco-Roman family constructs and social practices during the first century aren't closed to us; quite the opposite in fact. Consequently it would pay for you suspend your disbelief until you've adequately read yourself into the problem :) I stand by my earlier statement that New Testament baptism and Old Testament circumcision are two totally different things. We're not under law but under grace. Okay, but what does the relationship between an Old Testament covenant and its New Testament counterpart have to do with Paul's teaching on the forensic nature of justification? Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MrGrits
|
Share to:
#29
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re：Paedobaptism: Infant Sprinkling: Child Baptism? Date Posted：29/01/2012 8:18 AMCopy HTML Ian, This doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Mr Grits |
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.
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".
no matter how long one is out. 
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.
How can an infant be baptised if the person being baptised is required to understand, be a Christian, consent to and believe?
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.
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' 
The question specifically mentioned those who were "...baptised in Revivalism". Consequently, my response was directed at 'adult' conversions 
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. 
ffice" />
