Christians - where do you stand on Baptism?

[harrisey]

I've been a christian for 20 years. I was christened as an infant but came to faith myself at the age of 16 adn joined the church at 18. But as I have always gon to churches that do infant baptism, the question about whether i shoud be baptised as a believer never came up. Neither dh or I agree wih infant baptism and our 3 children have not been baptised. But it never seemed to be a big deal.
We have recently moved house and have chosen to go to our local Baptist church - not baecause of their stance on Baptism but because we like the style of worship, the preaching, fantastic ministry team, the childrens work is excellent etc ... I went to the evening service tonight and 3 people were being baptised. It was an amazing service and they said that it was one of the few instructions that Christ gave to his disciples "..go into all the world and make disciples of all nations baptising them in the name ..." etc. And Jesus himself was baptised.
Totally confused. Would fell a bit weird to be dunked after all this time. I dont really feel any 'need' to do it, but it does seem to be an instruction.... It is something that both dh and I have thought about on and off for a number of years.
Have any of you been naptised as an adult? Or chosen not to be for any reason? Just wondered what youthought about it.

If you dont feel any need to do it then dont.

sorry no experience here,was baptised as baby

Don't think infant baptism is invalid at all - once baptised, always baptised. There's also references in the Bible that entire households were baptised, so can assume that children under the age of reason were included (Acts 16:15, 16:33, 1Cor 1:16).

Saying that, I was baptised as a baby

I was baptised as a believer last year (go to a Baptist church) although I was baptised CofE as a baby. I did it because I just felt I had to - I was being compelled to it. I went to a series of classes for 3 months before and the actual baptism was an amazing experience. My dds were baptized CofE as babies due to dh's wishes but I hope they will choose believers baptism when they are older.

I was baptised as a baby, but had I not been I would have done it at the same time as I did church membership (about the same age as you).
As it was, I felt that entering membership was my version of adult baptism - an outward and visible sign of an inward and thingummy truth, or whatever the line is.
But I am notorious on MN for not adhering to the letter of the law () so wouldn't feel at all compelled by the 'instruction' as you heard it yesterday. If you're called to do it, you'll know!

Hi

Grew up in CofE and mum didn't want us baptised as babies because she didn't believe it had "magic" properties ie just cos baby baptised doesn't make it a believer. But eventually both me and my sister baptised as children due to church practice and talked into it for some reason! NEway. I retook my baptism vows at uni as had fallen away from faith and come back so to speak. Was an AMAZING experience of full emersion. But that was my choice and I wanted to do it. Wasn't forced to.

Saying that my own daughter has been dedicated but not baptised because I want her to make her own decision. The baptist church (not that i have anyhting against them btw) can pressure people but there we are.

The thing is that baptising babies as a kinda hocus pocus now you're guarenteed to get to heaven thing is nonesense. In CofE all you're doing is promising to bring the child up in the faith. The cofE has alot to answer for in some respects. It all stems from when you couldn't get a birth certificate without baptism or buried in consecrated ground etc. Now people assume that if you've been dunked that makes you a Chrsitian but it don't!

Sorry, don't mean to sound like a rant, it's just something I thought long and hard about for DD. NB guarenteed heaven comment not intended to upset anyone who's lost a baby. God is totally good and just and makes the perfect decisions re all of us in all circumstances, incl tiny people and where they end up.

Message withdrawn

"unless you are born again of water and the holy spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven".
Having said that, I would NEVER second-guess who God lets in and who he doesn't. Personally speaking, I don't THINK a baby would be kept out just because he/she had never been baptised, doesn't fit in with a loving God... However, I decided not to risk it with my two, so they have been baptised. They can reaffirm their faith when they are Confirmed, should they choose to do so.
For myself, I was received into the C of E at Easter, an absolutely fantastic experience. I made an affirmation of my baptismal vows, repeating the words that had been said for me as a baby. I didn't need to be baptised, its a "once only" experience.

I got 'christened' as a baby, by the C of E, because my parents thought it was the right thing to do. I had no say in it. It didn't change anything in me (or them!). However, when I came to faith for myself, I was 17 and attending a house church. I chose to be baptized because I wanted to make a public statement of my new faith.

That is what baptism is - a public statement that you identify yourself with the death (going into the water) and resurrection (coming up again!) of Jesus. What it symbolises is profound, but in and of itself it is a very simple act. It reflects, rather than causes, a change in the spirit of the new believer.

I am all for parents of babies wanting to give thanks to God for their safe arrival and praying that the Lord will look after them and help them to grow up to believe. But there is absolutely no necessity for there to be water involved in this process. God hears our prayers without us having to ritualise them and the fact that a child has been sprinkled with water that has had a priest's hands waved over it will make absolutely zero difference to that child's life, there and then and for the rest of his (or her) life.

I don't believe in half the mystical stuff that the 'high church' (Roman and a lot of Anglicans) add to it - nobody is ever recorded blessing or sanctifying baptismal water in the New Testament, and so far as I can see nobody was baptised by having water drizzled on their forehead either. You will also find no explicit reference to any infant being baptized - only a couple of places where you can infer that it might (just possibly) have happened, and even then I don't see that as a natural reading of the passage unless you already believe in infant baptism and want to try to prove it's right. It's also good to remember that all those references are in the book of Acts, which is primarily a history text, not a theological one (i.e. it tells you what happened, but not necessarily why, or whether it was a good thing). The acts in Acts can only be properly understood and used for teaching and doctrine when read alongside the gospels and the epistles, and in their entirety, only individuals professing faith are baptised.

In John 3 where Jesus speaks of water and the Spirit, the full context of his conversation with Nicodemus clearly suggests that being 'born of water' means natural birth of a human mother*, not water baptism, so I don't think it right to make that passage into evidence that water baptism is required for entrance to the Kingdom. Besides, if you go down that route, you end up tying yourself in tricky theological knots when it comes to things like death-bed conversion. It's wise to remember that God, having gone to extreme lengths to get us saved by sending his own son to die, is clearly more interested in making the way open for us to join him in eternity, than in making rules to stop us.

It's also worth remembering that right back at the start of the Reformation, a group of believers earned the scornful title 'Anabaptists' (re-baptisers) because they started baptising new belivers who had previously been members of the Roman church (and therefore already baptised as infants). These people realised that institutional, cultural Christianity is not the same thing as the real, life-giving relationship that Jesus died to bring us. When they started on that life for real, for the first time, they quite rightly employed baptism as a public statement of their commitment and belief. The Anabaptist movement, of course, eventually became today's Baptist church.

*New Testament teaching about the Kingdom is more about the relationship we will have with God and each other than it is about an actual place - 'born of water' shows that the fulness of this Kingdom is uniquely for us, not the Angels, and 'born of the Spirit' shows that it is only for us who are saved.

Bobsdad, that is your personal opinion, and I think you should respect the beliefs of some of the other people here.

MaryBS, we're all posting out personal opinions (as that was what the OP asked about) and I don't hear any disrespect from Bobsdad.
Sorry if you felt offended in any way.

I believe in one baptism. I was and had my children dedicated in chruch in place of a Christening. I was baptised as an adult and I think that a baptism is a confession of faith and therefore should only be undertaken when someone believes in Christ and has made a decision to follow Him.

Hi MaryBS ... I think there is a very profound difference between respecting someone's beliefs and their right to hold them, and believing them to be correct.

As a Christian, for example, you believe certain things that are totally incompatible with what a Jew, or a Muslim, would claim to be true. Disagreeing with them is not disrespecting them though. In believing what you believe, you cannot escape the fact that you therefore believe someone else is wrong in what they believe - this is true even if you never say so out loud.

Even when you do say it out loud it is not necessarily disrespect. It would be disrespectful if I stood up in your church on Sunday morning and read out what I've just posted. But to say so on a discussion forum? Well if you can't explore different points of view on a discussion forum, where can you?

I make no apology for believing that the Church of England is doctrinally in error for promoting infant baptism. I could point to more than one Anglican minister of my acquaintance who would agree with me on that point. I make no apology for saying so either, seeing as the OP asked for opinions from Christians (and I am one).

However, I absolutely respect your right to practice your faith the way you want to. I intended to give no offence and I wish you would be a little slower to take it!

It sounds like you have found a great church, harrisey. Perhaps an informal chat with someone you get on well with there will help you further along with your thoughts?

Bob, the point I was trying to make is that SOME of your post was not preceded by "I believe" but stated 'as fact'. Even St Paul used to distinguish between his own personal opinion and his teachings. I totally agree that you don't have to agree with me. Many people don't! I object to something I revere being dismissed as "mystical stuff" by a fellow Christian. Funnily enough I wouldn't have taken offence if you'd been an atheist, which probably sounds daft, because lets face it, faith is "mystical stuff".

You ask me to be a little slower in taking offence. Please may I make a request in return? That you consider how your words may be taken? I think the Pope's gaffe is a good example of things being taken out of context.

Well, I've done all 3 - infant baptised, confirmed as a teenager to gain full membership of the methodist church - I became a Christian when I was 7, so confirmation was definitely my choice - my parents sent me to church, they very rarely went, and I chose to attend confirmation classes and get confirmed - I stood up in my RE lesson at school, and invited the whole class to attend!

We now attend a joint Anglican/Baptist church, and, after God healed me of pretty severe depression DH and I decided to be fully immersed, as a real thanksgiving that I had been healed, and also to mean that we were full members of the church. There was no problem with us being rebaptised, although I think there would have been had we been infant baptised in a Cof E, because it was Methodist don't think it was seen as treading on anyone's toes. I do agree that Baptism is once for all time, but this was a renewal for us, and in order to have been full members of the church we would have had to be reconfirmed in the Anglican tradition instead (methodist confirmation wouldn't count. WE have had our 2 dedicated as children, and pray that they choose to be baptised when they are older. A close friend passionately argues for infant baptism, and I can respect his point of view too. Will post his arguments if anyone is interested.

Interesting. What would happen, say, in baptising adults not capable of making an informed decision, e.g. people with learning difficulties? Would Baptism then be withheld from them? If baptism is just a symbolic act, then why the special command to Baptise in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit? If it confers grace, then why reserve it only to people who are consensual? I know the baptism of the entire households in Acts doesn't explicitly spell out that infants were included. Neither though, does the bible say at what age would be appropriate for one to be baptised. Interestingly, in Luke 18:15-17, you find people bringing infants to Jesus, and although the disciples objected to this, Jesus certainly didn't, but instead encouraged it.

I don't have any objections to people being baptised only when they want to, but I also don't think babies should be withheld from any of God's redeeming grace (I'm not saying unbaptised babies don't go to heaven), so as parents and guardians of the infant, I think we should do what we feel is in the best interest of the child.

I felt that a dedication was the way forward. Our dds were given to God and as parents and a family, including the church family, we made a promise to raise the children in a loving Christian environment.

Ooh thorny one! Dh is a Baptist Minister, and we are both Baptist ... but

I was baptised, on confession of faith, at the age of 14 (in a Methodist church), having not been baptised as an infant. However, I was not baptised by total immersion. Dh and I are strongly against 're-baptism', though definitions of the term may vary.

But in our current church according to the constitution as I have not been "done properly", I am not entitled to be a full member. And I must admit this makes me feel rather like a second-class citizen.

I love our baptisms, but it doesn't have to be that way; and it annoys me intensely when churches get legalistic about it.

Neither of the dss have been baptised btw.

roisin,
how do u mean 'done the proper way'? Is baptism in a methodist church invalid?

I love the idea of Baptism. I was baptised as a baby but that was not of my own accord. I can't wait until my church does another outing (We go to the nearest river to get dunked, just like Jesus!! yay!!)

I have had my son Dedicated and my daughter will be later in the year. I feel that baptism should be something undertaken after being full informed of what it symbolises and consent given. I was baptised as catholic and I no longer feel that counts IYSWIM?

Mary, I believe it is fact ... otherwise what's the point believing it? And Paul admitting something is only his opinion is mostly remarkable for the fact that he hardly ever says that! In my experience a lot of people try to pass off whole chunks of Paul as 'only his opinion' even when he doesn't say so.

But I take your point. I spend most of my time on a different forum which has no 'spirituality' section of its own and is populated mostly by atheists. Christianity occasionally comes up in the 'lifestyle' section, and some of the discussions there get a little too animated for niceties like 'I believe' to be posted at the start of every paragraph. I know that none of them would have any qualms about slating my beliefs, without doing me the service of saying 'I believe your god doesn't exist', and so I try to give as good as I get ...

I will try to remember to be more explicit in my occasional ramblings here on MN, however it might be safer if you assume I'm saying I believe something to be true unless I say otherwise! At the end of the day though, as I said earlier, when two people believe mutually incompatible things, they both can't be right. The best we can hope for is to exchange views, give reasons for what we believe, and see what happens next. We may or may not persuade each other, but hopefully we will understand each other better at the end of the process. Unless it's a matter pertaining to eternal life itself (or otherwise) of course, in which case the eternal consequences are worth arguing over!

It reminds me of an evening I spent with a high Anglican friend at university - he explained to me why he prays to saints. At the end of the evening I understood why he believes what he does, but I still thought he was wrong. He's a vicar in South Wales now!

By the way ... my comment about taking offence was inspired by a letter about the Pope in this morning's Times. The correspondent pointed out, with reference to this week's debacle, that offence can be taken, even where it was not offered, as a means of attacking the one who spoke rather than engaging with what he actually said, and therefore avoiding useful discussion. I think that is what has happened to the Pope: some muslims have been far too quick to take offence, and have gone on the attack, thereby missing the point he was trying to make about reason and dialogue.

It is true that since I posted you have preferred to discuss me and my discussion skills (or lack thereof) rather than why you believe what you do, and why you think I'm on the wrong track. I'd really like to hear what you think though - go on, I promise I'm interested and won't be offended that you think I'm talking nonsense!

Tootsieroll - according to our church constitution the manner of baptism (i.e. total immersion or not) is important

This is not a Baptist thing btw; I've been a full member of other Baptist churches despite having had a not-very-wet baptism. It depends on the individual church's constitution.

roisin, I was raised a baptist and the baptisms I attented were wonderful, spiritual and very moving. I came very close to being baptised.

My aunt was baptised at the same time as two of her grandchildren (who were late teenagers at the time). The time was right for her then. She always kidded us that she waited until she was too old for 'serious' sinning

The key point in the church I want to, was that it was an adult baptism. the method was just a matter of taste.

tootsieroll - I was at a baptism service where someone with learning difficulties was baptised. M was in his early twenties, but with an understanding of life as a child of perhaps 6 or 7. The pastor had discussed with M his desire for baptism and decided it was appropriate. It is customary in that church for the person to give a short explanation about their reasons for baptism. In this instance, the pastor suggested that he could ask M several questions, which he could answer as briefly or fully as he wished to. It was very moving.

When the pastor asked, 'M, why do you want to be baptised?' M replied 'It's in the Bible!'

Personally, I believe that those who are unable to make a decision on faith because of age/ability, etc, will be taken to Heaven when they die (or are raptured), whether or not they have been baptised/christened.

I base my thoughts on the fact that in his time on earth, Jesus always welcomed children, even when the disciples thought he was so tired he shouldn't be bothered.

What do others think about that point?