 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Baptism | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 5:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | Page 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
little_lamb
03/03/01 9:03 PM
Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can someone express the biblical view of baptism and how it relates to the infant vs "believer" baptism debate? I come from a background that does not baptize infants, but I'm beginning to wonder if it should be done. What do all of you have to say about the subject?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/04/01 7:04 AM
RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can appreciate where infant baptizers are coming from. Their main case is a) O.T. precedent where children are included in God's covenant (e.g. circumcision); b) two references to "household baptism" in Acts (ch.16 for example). Nevertheless, for several reasons I practice only "believers baptism."
1) The O.T. precedent has been superceded in the New, for we are no longer under a national covenant. The New Covenant is based on individual's DECISION to belong. Hence, it seems to me the sign of the covenant should follow a decision.
2) "Households" in the first century generally referred to all adults -- including household servants. I'd argue that the household baptism texts all imply that all the members of the household were believers, and that at least some of the text suggest this. Generally speaking, in first century Roman culture children weren't counted... Indeed, a father had the right to decide whether an infant would live or die after birth.
c) The meaning of baptism, as it is discussed in the NT, hinges on Individual decision. Mt 28:19. "Go MAKE DISCIPLES, baptizing THEM in the name..." Baptism is part of descipleship. ACTS 2:38, REPENT and be baptized.. Baptism is part of our repentance ("turning"). Rom 6:1-10: Baptism is our identification with the death and resurrection of Christ. It is a tomb stone of the death of the Old Self, and a birth certificate for the birth of the New Self. This only has meaning, I would argue, for people who can turn from the old, and put on the new.
Good question. What do others think?
GB
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/04/01 1:32 PM
RE: RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to weigh in (and for fun...
1. correct we are not under a national covenant. but there is evidence that God didn't think nationalistically in the OT. The "circumcision of the heart" language indicates this. Besides the Heb. 11 Hall of Faith is not limited to Jews as candidates. The NT refers to baptism as the new circumcision, this argues strongly for a connection to be maintained in function as signs of covenants.
2. I'd need to see some support for your claim that households don't include children in the 1st century. I doubt that that came be stated unabiguously. Even so, your point would indirectly serve the opposition by insuring that the faith of the head of the household would be passed on to the rest of the household/family. In this case, they might still be baptized all together.
c. (3.?? whatever dude.) We are a completely individualistic culture, this at least colors our view of "membership" in communities, including the Body of Christ. Why think that those who are born into the covenant community should be excluded from that community until they are old enough to "join"? Rather, why not raise them as honorary members (at least!!!) and then offer a time for them to come of age and take up adulthood for themselves. (Hence infant baptism and then confirmaiton.) Greg, you logic would have babies going to hell if they died before choosing Christ. Infant baptism corresponds very nicely with arranged marraiges, which, while very unpopular in our individualistic culture are still widespread throughout the world and were certainly so in the 1st Century.
IV. (for the sake of organizational variety) Greg, since you as a baptist-hanging-on-by-the-skin-of-your-teeth you take baptism to be completely "symbolic" why make such a fuss about it? Why not let those who recognize a powerful work of God at that event reflect on the meaning of that as they go through confirmation? Lutherans are taught to "remember your baptism". If its "symbolic" why violate the huge investment many denominations invest in this sacrament so that we can redunk'um (my rendering of "Anabaptism") for a spiritual high? After all, the Bible teaches that there is only ONE baptism.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/04/01 10:50 PM
RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes,
1) I knew you'd come through on this thread.
B) love your organizational variety
3) I don't agree with you that Doc's view means babies go to hell.
I didn't baptise my babies because I believe as Doc does. (My mother was so worried I was damning them.) I know you don't believe this either, and I'm not really sure you think Doc does. Stirring things up a bit again, perhaps?
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
03/05/01 12:51 AM
RE: RE: RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes: a couple of points I'd like to point out (I am being redundant, am I not?). Since Greg is right that the majority of the verses in the New Testament talk of making a decision to be baptised, the opus is on you to prove that the verses that talk about "household" include infants. It would seem to me that if God wanted infants to be baptised, he would have been more specific about it than that, considering that the vast majority of verses that talk of baptism talk of it as a decision to be made. Second, it seems to me that you are assuming that Greg believes a person must be baptised or they are going to hell. Just because a person isn't baptised, doesn't mean they can't get into heaven. Where is the scriptural support for that?
A final point is this: you say why not raise them as honorony members (I assume by being baptised)until they are old enough...well doesn't that mock the process of baptism if they decided to reject God altogether? Given they do have a choice in the matter, it would seem to me that they may, despite a parent's best ability, reject God. To me, it seems that many parents do it to make their children "safe" in God (I baptised him, God must accept him). But the raising of a child and the baptising of the child does not replace the child's own decision as to whether or not they accept and follow God. Finally, your argument about infant baptism corresponding nicely with arranged marriages loses me, unless people are now saved through their marriages. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MrIndifference
03/05/01 1:13 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tend to hold to the "Age of Accountability" theory. I believe for the Jewish culture it is right around 13, but children are not accountable until they are at a mental maturity\capacity to make informed decisions. Thus if they are not at that point, they have got an automatic in for heaven. In many cases, this would include those who were either born and\or contracted severe learning disabilities at an early age.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/05/01 10:27 AM
RE: RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[from the author of "Modes"]
Springs, we are dealing with ideas here, not people or even what we know about what people think. As you know I write under the Pseudonym, "Modes" and this character is NOT identical to who you know me to be offline (or should I say, who you THINK you know me to be offline). "Modes" is sorting thoughts through Kierkegaard at present and using Lutheran (SK was Lutheran) categories when given the choice between that and baptist ones. (Modes is sick of baptists in general, sadly.) "Modes" is excited about relational cosmologies, nominalism, etc... and is one way for me (the author of "Modes") to "try out" some of these ideas in a way that is fairly close to real world applications. I dealt with Boyd's ideas as stated, not what I might, or might not know of his ideas offline.
I suppose this exposes why I haven't been very threatened by the recent controversies about pseudonyms, I, Modes, am a pseudonym, and I like it that way. Trust only in the character you see manifested here, not in who you might suppose is behind him. i have given away some pretty key guiding principles so that may help people know what to expect of me, if my author is any good at keeping this gig up.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/05/01 10:48 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoa, whoa hold up dude, someone explain to me why the onus is on me to explain that "household" means "household" as we understand it? Traditionally, the one who offers the counter-intuitive (or at least VERY alternative) reading of a word has to justify that reading! Sorry, not gonna bite on that one.
Second point, suppose we assume that the disciples of Jesus are converting people to a faith that is new is some sense, wouldn't it be strange if they aimed the weight of their efforts at children? Of course it would, they expect that the household will conform to the religion of the head of the household. Here's the point, this is the first generation of converts, it only makes sense that most, if not almost all, the converts are adults, and more over, men. This is precisely what the NT reflects. You only have the question of infant baptism emerging in later generations of Christians, not the first! It is surpirsing to me that we overlook/dismiss the "households" being saved at this point, this fits with what we should expect.
Baptism is God's work. Not ours. It is no mockery when Jesus says "bring the children to me" to do precisely that. It would be audacious to suppose that baptism is merely a choice on our part when we get around to feeling like it. What about those who fall into sin, should they then be rebaptized? Isn't our sin, after baptism, more truly a mockery of baptism? Only if you think of baptism as a work of humans. If we see itas the work of God that it is we understand that it is truly "for us" and truly free. We are forgiven ("it is finished"), we ought to be baptized, we all have lot's of time and room to grow into a richer understand of what God is doing through the sacrament of baptism.
Here's another way of putting it. must we make disciples before we baptize? Or might we baptize and then make disciples? I surely would not want to be the one to break the news to the poor guy that says "you must first become a disciple before we will apply God's grace to you"!!! No, discipleship follows the initiation into the new covenant.
Another deep issue here is the nature of a sacrament, do we dare go there here? Do we dare reduce the ways God has promised to be present in the world to mere "symbols" with ambiguous if any reality to them? Why else do we so often competely neglect communion (speaking of some baptists here)?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/05/01 10:48 AM
Enquiry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes,
How close is "Modes" from taking the leap to full fledged trinitarian process theology? Just wondering...
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/05/01 11:29 AM
RE: Enquiry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Meph, fair question.
So far SK's assessment of what it means to be a "self" (see "Sickness Unto Death") as well as his understanding of sin, is unsurpassed in my mind. This definition of a self (the self is a relation that relates itself to itself and in willing to be itself, the self rests transparently in the power that established it...my fairly tight paraphrase of the conclusion to "A." in SD) FAR surpasses what is available in process thought. And likewise his understanding of sin as a misrelation within the self is very clear and helpful.
So my interest in relational theology/cosmology is more "from below" than "from above" as it would be from the process perspective. This is not to say that there are no categories which I find helpful in process thought! Surely if I had to choose between drawing on Plato, Aristotle or Whitehead for cosmological suggestions, I'd pick the latter. But self-admittedly, process has its difficulty with continuity, particularly a continuity where one could speak of the emergence of a center of "willing" or "thinking"; "a person" is difficult to concieve in process terms. Here, SK has it going on!
I have skirted the issue a bit, but I would refrain from calling myself a full fledged process theology to the extent that that conflicts with evangelical commitments. Here's what I mean:
1. I have a high view of Scripture
2. I have a higher view of Christ
3. I believe in the transformative power of God and its manifestation in the world
4. I retain the urgency of evangelism
These four points I consider central to evangelicalism. I hold to these, and so call myself an evangelical. There are no self-proclaimed process thinkers who I know of who hold to these in the same way that evangelicals do. most would not desire to any of these at all. I hope this sheds some light.
love ya brother...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
03/05/01 11:44 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes: I already explained why the opus is on you...I can understand though why you do not want to tackle it because, aside from the "household," verses there is no scriptural evidence for infant baptism. So. I suppose, for those who want to take such a position its best not to deal with the scriptures but to become more philosophical about it.
I don't believe Greg's interpretation is counter-intuitive, unless one takes a modern day meaning for the word (the same thing happens when one applies modern day meanings to the word "slavery"). You are trying to justify a doctrine by appealing to scriptures that could have different interpretations. I am simply saying that we should take those verses that are straightforward and not use scriptures that have various interpretations to form our beliefs. People take, for instance, the verse in Acts that says "repent and be baptised for the forgivness of sins," to justify one has to be baptised to be saved. Yet to take that view violates the clear reading of passages. Its important to remember that we are not in the same culture and that we are not reading the originals, but translations of copies of the originals.
Finally, while I believe that what the first century Christians did is important, the final authority that is binding is scripture. Until someone shows me some concrete verses that show or command infant baptism, I can hardly believe it is something that the church needs to be doing. Jesus, however, said make disciples, baptising them...you make them, which is through conversion, then you get them baptised. I don't believe that is done unless someone can make the decision to do so. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/05/01 2:03 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harold, since you seem to accept Greg's RE-defining of the word "household" without reservation or reference, I will do the same, at your request:
The word household, in the conext of the NT should be understood to include the head of the house and all those who are under the authority and structure of that head. This includes the wives, children (including infants), slaves, and servants. All of these would be included in those passages which refer to the whole household being baptized.
By the way, there was much more to my argument than simply this point. But I am not yet ready to concede this point either. I am probably not doing a very good job of defending this position, if you want a better argument for infant baptism you should check out Luther's article on the matter. It rocks. Maybe I'll send you some quotes...
Does tradition hold any weight in this argument? Just curious, cause infant batism wins hands down there.
BTW my (Modes') actual position is more akin to the Covenant or Methodist take on this issue: both ways gets the job done. It is better not to do it both ways for a particular person, however. My goal is to argue only that those who were baptized as infants and recognize THAT baptism (as the sign of their covenant with God) are justified in doing so (just as we recognize arranged marraiges, though we have reservations about them). To disqualify that would be a huge attack upon most of the Western Church throughout its history!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/05/01 2:12 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
writerdad,
Don't forget that i prefaced my participation in this whole thread with the words "for fun" because I don't think it worth splitting over, so take what I say at that level, please...
BTW: You do believe in the Trinity and Creation Ex Nihilo right? Neither of these are taught explicitly in Scripture. They help us out philosophically. Sorta like the traditional understanding of baptism helps us out practically (AND is biblical/covenantal as per other posts above).
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
03/05/01 3:37 PM
Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t have the title off the top of my head, but I really liked “Brookes” book on baptism.
Anyway, as much as I like Greg and Co. around here, I am starting to lean towards Mode’s position myself on the baptism question. Mode’s thoughts on “relational cosmotologies” is more or less un-chartered territory to me that I find interesting nonetheless. I think there is a model of baptism (the disciple model) that *could solve* some of the problems that one comes across in the other models, i.e. probationary model, cleansing model, judgment model, baptist model, and the liberation model.
At the expense of being utterly redundant and “Get a few thoughts of your own Brandon!” I must defer the reader to:
http://www.brow.on.ca/Books/Learners/LearnersIntro.html
I believe most denominations recognize that baptism to some extent or another enrolls learners or disciples but:
“the agreement quickly turns to disagreement when we ask the question: Who should be baptized? If we use the school analogy again, do we enroll all candidates, or only those who first prove themselves, or who attain a certain age, or who understand and believe certain things, or those who have proved their commitment by good behavior and perseverance?”
I am more or less convinced that there was not much “screening” done to “applicants” and that:
“It could be argued that there were delays in some cases, but we have no evidence of this, and the epistles of Paul, and the pastoral and other epistles give no instructions about delay or checking the sincerity of candidates. The fact that John records many baptisms of those becoming disciples, and then describes much apostasy, suggests that no screening of candidates took place in the church circles that he was familiar with (John 4:1; 6:60, 66).”
In the end:
"The parables of Jesus therefore seem designed to justify the open admission policy illustrated in the book of Acts. Not only should everyone be included, but in some cases the riffraff of the city might even be compelled to come in to the banquet. That would be sufficient justification for the head of a household to insist that his whole family and all his household slaves be baptized and instructed. As the gospel moved across Europe it was common for a king to be convinced by the missionaries, and then order his whole tribe to be lined up for baptism. Though this may sound like in indiscriminate baptism, the picture of the church as a school for disciples changes the tone of the whole situation. Indiscriminate baptism in its bad sense involves baptizing all and sundry with no provision for "the apostles' teaching and fellowship," worship around the bread and the wine, and "the prayers" (Acts 2:42).
Indiscriminate baptism in the right sense requires that any church that baptizes must also provide the rich life of a school of the Holy Spirit for those who are added by baptism. The responsibility to do this lies within the church, not in the good intentions or hesitating faith of the new learners."
Brandon
Cutting and pasting Brow’s e-book on baptism.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/05/01 3:55 PM
RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Brandon, thanks man, it was getting sorta lonely out here on this limb...
Don't worry about using others' arguments, that's about the best we can usually do! I think you thoughts and quotes are helpful, let's see where it leads...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
03/05/01 4:30 PM
Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notta problem Modes. Let's take these guys on! I agree with you about using others thoughts. Really, not that much is original. It's just a matter of finding it and organizing it. Ok. Which one of you guys wants Modes an I to "keep you under" in the waters of baptism? C'mon. C'mon. Let's go! Let's Rock and Roll!
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
03/05/01 6:16 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes: actually, I've read most of the stuff on infant baptism and let's just say I don't believe it "rocks." My point still stands: the verses in consideration CAN be interpreted the way you believe, but can also be interpreted as I believe. It should also be noted, as I stated before, if God wanted infants baptised, why didn't the NT writers address it in direct terms, considering that it goes against the clear teachings of the rest of the NT? Even if I did interpret the word "household," in your use, that still doesn't mean it was meant to be definitive for the entire church, again considering that all the rest of the clear teaching of scripture supports making a decision to be baptised.
As far as the history having any weight: to a certain extent. But then the history of the Christian church is filled with many things that we now reject, including (for many of us), aspects of the traditional doctrine of God. So many of us are already making a huge attack on the history of Western Christianity. Ain't no small thing, that! John 17:3 Harold. PS, I am still waiting for a clear scripture directive on infant baptism...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
03/05/01 6:21 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes: I understand that, and have no wish to get in a prolonged debate on this (to be frank, people simply believe one way or the other and are usually not swayed, including yours truly). I agree that the Trinity and creation ex are not explicitly (though they are taught). My point is simply that, since baptism is shown to be decision oriented for each individual, I feel scripture would have been more explicit in showing that infant baptism is now the way, if God wanted such a thing to occur. But you are right...I have no need to split over such a thing. To be frank, in this day and age, while I disagree with it, it is good that there are parents to care enough about their children to baptise them as a sign to God. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MrIndifference
03/05/01 8:51 PM
Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tend to view infant baptism more for the parents than the infant itself. It seems more that the parents are making a covenant to raise the child to know and serve God than anything. Isn't it like the child dedication in the Evengelical world?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
little_lamb
03/05/01 10:00 PM
RE: Baptism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to put a damper on all of this wonderful discussion, but I did ask for the BIBLICAL view. I don't know about all of you, but I generally rely on the Bible for that. Some of you started out doing this but have stopped. I was wondering if we could we maybe return to Scripture for this discussion.
Just a thought.
little lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Go To Page 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:48 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|