Infant Baptism

That sounds ridiculous, but... somehow expected...

On topic, there is certainly one objection I can imagine to Infant Baptism: it can be the outlet to the idea that God's grace won't be enough, later in life. Those children who are baptized are generally considered "secure" by their parents at least for several years, but if they doesn't grow up to be of pure heart & faith, all of the water in the Jordan could not avail them.

To baptize babies can be a sort of "precaution", i.e. "just in case he doesn't grow up to affirm Christian faith, at least he's baptized!" - which certainly allows for deplorable negligence on the family's part. Now if that sort of attitude never occurs, never mind.

 

Brother, I whole heartily agree. I pray that myself and others (especially the clergy) will not see baptism just as a perfunctory obligation, but the beginning of a lifelong pattern of study, prayer, repentance, and renewal! I think we've all fallen far short of the mark in this aspect, myself included. May God help us all!

Jeff

 

I used to know a lady who would put a little holy water in soups that she made for sick folks. She'd also say the rosary while stirring in the sign of the cross.

 

Why do you equate the two? Maybe here is where the root of the problem lies. Baptism regenerates, yes, according to the Anglican Church, but it does not 'save', no.

Exactly! Baptism is a magnificent and beautiful Rite, one of the holiest moments in a Christian life, the engrafting unto the Body of Christ, a lifeline to a sinful soul, that now can begin on the road to salvation.

You are obsessed with parties, for some reason. I am only talking about doctrine. The DOCTRINE of the Church is fixed and stated, while what PARTIES think, yours, mine, all of them, are irrelevant.

To correct this for a thousandth time, there aren't different kinds of baptism. There is one baptism, with water an outward sign of inner and spiritual grace.

"Verily I say unto you, that unless a person is born again of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."

Well you asked for everything, even steps that don't involve human action. From a human perspective salvation involves just three steps: baptism, faith, works. You can also mix in the Holy Communion there, as it makes the latter two much more possible.

Sacraments have to be filtered through the prism of being founded on faith, and not upon ex oper operato. No sacraments, even the strong language that is found in the Canons, can be imparted without faith. Remember that in Baptism, you also have the faith of your godparents mixing into the equation. They stand as your surety as well as your own faith does.

 

There is one baptism, and that is by the Spirit into the Body of Christ upon coming to faith, whether or not one has had water baptism.

And for the thousandth time, the verse you quoted does not teach (water) baptismal regeneration, or that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

For me, it's still very telling that Luther was baptizing infants, even with his staunch views of salvation by faith alone. He saw the perversion of the Roman Church in numerous aspects of theology and practice, yet infant baptism wasn't on his radar at the time. I still think one of the issues that people mis-understand when quoting Acts 2:38 and other passages is this; most of those folks had not been raised in the faith, nor given the opportunity of admission to the faith community as we now have, so their profession, salvation, and demonstration was all grouped together in a single event. I've seen such a dichotomy between the "liturgical church" and the evangelical community professing baptismal regeneration, with the later having someone repeat a "sinners prayer", then rushing them to be baptized........end of story. A significant number of these people never return to church or fall away within 6 months, something Jesus warned about in the parable of the seed. Infant baptism is the beginning of a lifelong practice of study,prayer, and discipleship that gives the child that fertile ground Jesus mentioned.

Jeff

 

hello I am new have been lurking for a while. I decided to register after having seen this thread on baptism, and all the good views expressed here.Thank you all for strength and courage at keeping the faith...

 

Welcome!

 

And where I live, it's just the opposite. Those churches practicing believer's baptism only have many more committed young people who stay committed, whereas the infant baptizers don't even bring their Bibles to church and treat their religion like a social club. Further, the believer's baptism churches have Sunday Schools which people actually attend, whereas in the infant baptizing churches most get up and leave after the worship/preaching service. I know because I've been a member in both types of churches. Bottom line: The believer's baptism churches are much better at bringing young people to faith in Jesus, making them committed disciples, and keeping them that way. The Baptists, Pentecostals, and Holiness churches around here still have Sunday morning and night services, and Wednesday night Bible study/prayer meeting; the mainline denominations stopped that many years ago.

 

I'm glad you have strong faith communities where you live, but as we've discussed, the sacrament of baptism is not magical salvation nor tongues, gifts, or prophecy, it's outward identification with Christ and His Church. Why would we wait until teenage or adult years to do this? I've also been where you're at now, and those Baptist's and Pentecostal's look good on the surface with their numerous meetings and outward holiness, but they argue like junk yard dogs over bible translations, denominational dogma, and split over carpeting color. Their "committed disciples" often show up pregnant out of marriage and are locked out of their pseudo holy assembly. Maybe we've collectively fallen short in our Baptismal Covenant, but my goal is to honor and teach others about this covenant and not abandon it for empty modern theology.

Jeff

 

I don't know where you've been going, but the TEC parished around here, when folks show up at all, they show up in shorts in t-shirts. I always marvel when you can see the Acolyte's bare hairy legs and flipflops sticking out under his robes. Plus, my mom's parish is the last one I've been to that actually played an organ instead of a folk band with guitars and jazz flutes. Also, while all I've been to is independent and southern baptist congregations, I don't know how they could ever be defined as squishy. There's more hellfire and brimstone falling during a single church's sunday sermon than has ever been dreamt of in all the Anglican Communion. My baaptist grandmother, attended church 4 times a week in her finest outfits, would smack the devil out of you when you even looked like you were going to take the Lord's name in vain, and whipped me me with a switch once when she caught me mowing the grass on Sunday when she drove by our house....and she was the easy going one in her church.

 

I do sometimes forget the diversity of a national forum. I suppose our Diocese is somewhat conservative in worship comparatively, but every parish I've ever been to (quite a few over the years) has been outfitted with a pipe organ and choir, so the jeans and guitar were always reserved for our summer camp. I do want to clarify something though, we often mistake the frequent meetings and fire/brimstone as a good and holy thing. I've been in that arena for the last 8 years, and this is the crowd that also says women must wear dresses and men must wear suit and tie in church, and that God reads the King James Bible ( a well known baptist tract). They also mandate that you be baptized in their water for salvation, gifts, etc, and that all other differing denominations are apostate. I long for, and will strive to achieve, a church that is rooted in scripture and Holy tradition, and that infancy is the beginning of a lifelong membership and participation within a community of faith.......God's Church!

Jeff

 

As do I Jeff. but there is nothing more squishy than the tripe that Bishop Schori spews on a regular basis. I admire, though I may not necessarily agree with, a denomination that refuse to cede ground to the secularists just to be considered cool or relvant or, of course, tolerant by them.

 

Your statements about the evangelical churches are simply not true; further they are insulting.

And you are saying there is no controversy in the TEC over doctrine and practice?! As I said before, you'd better lie low or your fascist PB will be coming for you with the denominational gestapo.

Good luck with trying to teach that covenant in the TEC which will be lucky to have churches for you to try to accomplish that in if things keep going as they are. Attendance and membership are in a steep decline, and church doors are closing as people are voting with their feet.

 

Why argue with someone's personal experience?

 

Some here are simply trying to diminish those who are faithful to the Gospel to cover up what is happening in the mainline denominations, including TEC.

 

No, what you have done is to try and make people believe that one narrow, small, exclusivist expression of the church is the same as all Baptist, holiness, evangelical churches. And that is shameful.

 

One thing I am certain about: I know I could no longer be a part of TEC, not any more than I could be a member of an Appalachian snake-handling church! In fact, I'd rather face a snake than the TEC presiding bishop. At least with a snake, you know what to expect at all times.

 

You of all people should understand with this, considering the number of churches that you profess to belonging to over time. One "narrow" "exclusive" expression? Where would you like to start? Christian Church Independent, Church of Christ, Church of Christ non instrumental, Apostolic trinitarian, Apostolic Jesus only, Pentecostal, Assemblies of God, Church of God, Independent Baptist, General Association of Regular Baptists, Southern Baptist, General Baptist, then I could go on with the long list of Wesleyan, Nazarene, and holiness offshoots, but you get the point.

Jeff