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.

I know ww - thats what I meant!

And now there is a spin off thread!

harrisey, the big problem is when people start thinking 'their way' is superior or 'that way' is odd. I am finding very little respect here for those of us who have had our babies baptised, not because it is the 'done' thing to do, but because we believe passionately that it is the right thing to do for our children.

nearly3 - I hope I havent said anything that made you think that. I am fully aware that there are people who passionaltely beleive different things about baptism - I have not had my children baptised as I feel the fact I was baptised as an infant is now 'getting in the way' of my thoughts about whether I should be baptised as an adult. But I would never stand in the way of people who have a different interpretation of scripture and have chosen infant baptism - we just didn't want it for our kids.
The bible is so broad, there are so many interpretations of so many key and non-key texts, (as a just starting out Bible college student I am seeing this through new eyes as there are a gazillion more controversies than I had ever heard of!).

Every night when we put our kids to bed, we sing 'Jesus Loves Me'. In the end, this is key - Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. There are an awful lot of issues out there which I am sure come from us and not from God. I am just trying to explore what God would have me do in relation to baptism at this point in my life, in my journey with him, in the mission he has given to me.

Nearlythree, I really do think you are confusing 'disagreement' and 'disrespect'. Sadly the prevailing philosophy under which we live in the West today is a postmodern one in which the only thing you're not allowed to believe - at least not out loud - is that somebody else might be wrong.

This idea suits individuals who want to believe something yet without needing to give any serious thought to why they believe it, because there is never any need to defend it. If someone comes along and says something that contradicts a dearly held belief, it has become acceptable for the sincerity of that belief to stand as an acceptable defence of it, rather than any logical, reasonable argument of why the belief is held to be true.

I have no idea whether you passionately believe in infant baptism because your priest teaches you it's right, whether your family tradition tells you it's right, whether you simply have a feeling inside that it's right, or because your own study of the scriptures tells you it's right. To be honest, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that Harrisey asked for Christians to give their views on Baptism and that's what everyone is doing. Surely you can't be offended that someone else believes something different to you? How on earth would you handle a conversation with someone from a different religion entirely?

Like it or not, if one person believes that the Bible teaches baptism is for adults, and someone else believes that the Bible teaches it is for children too, then one or the other of those people is wrong. The two ideas are mutually incompatible. They are not both right. They cannot be.

It happens that I believe infant baptism is a doctrinal error and that the practice of it runs contrary to clear Biblical teaching. I have given reasons, and links to further discussion, to back up what I'm saying. I don't expect to convince anyone particularly. I don't think internet forums are the best place for that sort of thing. Face to face discussion over a length of time during which you can develop a proper relationship with someone is the way to try to truly convince someone of something.

To get back to the issue of people believing each other to be wrong: how is this disrespectful? It would be disrespectful to burst in on an infant baptism and loudly decry it. But to have a disagreement on a discussion forum, which is here precisely so that people can be honest and exchange views and ideas ... that't not disrespect. It's just disagreement. To be honest, I'm disappointed that no-one who passionately believes in infant baptism has come in here with a detailed post explaining why they believe it. That would be much more interesting and much more like a discussion, which I thought is what we were here for ...

Harrisey, I most definitely wasn't referring to you, I think you have started an interesting discussion and one that it is right to have.

Bobsdad, I find your assumptions about myself quite breathtaking. I do not object to anyone disagreeing with me, because my truth is just that - mine - your truth will be different. What I object to is stating that matters of belief are incontravertable fact, when they cannot be. For example, your interpretation of the baptising of Cornelius's household in Acts is just that - yours. Unless you were actually there you cannot say with any certainty whether such an event even took place or whether these are real people, much less who was or wasn't baptised. This text doesn't particularly hold much weight with me from a theological pov, but there may be some here for whom it does and whom do believe children to have been present, and to call their beliefs 'daft' is neither respectful nor (as you claim for yourself) humble. You can say you believe me to be wrong. You cannot say you know me to be wrong.

I have made it quite clear why I believe in infant baptism on this thread already. I have also said that I fully understand why others decide it is not for them. I attend a Baptist church, so my beliefs have nothing to do with my priest, as I do not have one. As for people from other faiths, my friends include buddhists, hindus, atheists and humanists (their distinctions). I particularly have benfitted from discussions with Jewish friends of mine who have pointed out the anti-semitism in the NT, particularly in the Gospel of John, which is one reason I cannot believe in the infallibility of the Bible. I do struggle to have reasonable discussions with other Christians who claim to have a monopoly on the truth, however.

Finally an apology for you, Harrisey, because I think your discussion is very interesting and I know you to be particularly open-minded.

It is a shame that MaryBS has dispapeared from this thread.

I do try to be open minded. I don't always find it easy, if I am honest (look at comments on flag waving) but I know there are many ways to interpret so muc hof what CHrist taught. I know I am going to have a bit of flak at Bible College for my interest in Liberation Theology and my agnostic views on homosexuality (just cant make my mind up on thet, though of course I would never judge anyone who had made a choice).

I recently wrote an essay on the church in the 1st-3rd centuries AD. There was a lot of persecution then and many people lapsed in their faith, only to ask to come back to the church when persecution passed. At theat time, the church redifined itself - previously it had thought of itself as a 'society of saints' but it now felt that it was a 'school for sinners'. I think that if the different churches (for back then, of course, there was only one church) thought of itself as not 100% right but as a place where those who needed forgiveness could come to find it and learn and grow, then the church would be a much happier place to be.
One of the reasons we have chosen the individual congregation that we are part of it that they do reach out - a ministry to alcoholics and drug addicts, a drop in for asylum seekers, holiday activities for children that are overwhelmingly children who do not come to church. People who care about the world in which we live. People who put aside so much time to pray for the people they work with. This forgives any amount of flag-waving (!) in my book.

Message withdrawn

Oh, I have only read the OP. But, I want to say that I have been where you are now. My mother is a devout and proud atheist. I am one of four kids and none of us were baptised as children. When I was in my mid twenties I began to think about it. But, it took me forever to do anything about it because I was embarrased about not having been baptised. So, when I was in my early thirties and lic=ving smack dab across the street from Christ Curch Cathedral in Dublin,I sent and e-mail to the Dean and enquired about being baptised. And there I was thinking some discreet little ceremony in the corner on a Tuesday afternoon... NOPE! His idea was to be baptised and confirmed by the bishop at the Easter Eve ceremony. At first,I though "you want me to do what????" But, I did it. And it was positively the coolest baptism there ever was. And it means so much to me. The Easter Eve service at Christ church begine with the congregation seated in the crypt, and then they all go outside and enter the cathedral by candlelight.

Anyway, it took me ages to put myself forward. But I definately think you should go for it if you want to.

Incidentally, my brother was baptised in the states in a Baptist church (dunked in the bath and all) when he was in his 30s.

My 2 sisters have no interest really in any church.

For me, as a catholic, baptism is more than an affirmation of faith. Once you have been baptised, you are baptised. Going through it again is not meaningful. My grandfather converted to catholicism as an adult, and was not re-baptised, but received into the church in a special service. As with Uwila, adult baptisms and receptions into the church are carried out at the Easter Vigil.

If you don't accept your previous baptism as a true baptism, then do it! Have you spoken to your minister? (Apologies if already answered, haven't read the whole thread)

Ah, I see the discussion has moved on a bit from the op!

"Baptism comes to us as a concept only because of its presence in the Bible"

Is this true? Or does it come from the tradition of the church? Did we discover the bible and take what was written in it as our model, or is our practice based on practices continuing and developing from the early church onwards?

I see where you're coming from Becky but I think the distinction is a little artificial. There were all kinds of heresies and misunderstandings in the very early church. Most of the epistles in the New Testament were written to address them, and many Councils were held in the first four centuries for similar reasons. I would say all of these things occurred before anything you could properly call 'Church tradition' became established. After all, the epistles became part of the Bible, and did so by agreement at the Councils.

God has spoken through many people at many times, but the complete expression of his puropse is first and foremost in the Bible. I think Church tradition should be judged by scripture, not vice versa.

When I say that all we know about Baptism is in the Bible, I don't mean that you can't find any reference to Baptism in any extra-Biblical text. I just mean that the Bible is the only source of Divinely-inspired Word on the subject, and therefore it would be improper to formulate a theology of Baptism (or anything else) based on a text or oral teaching that is not based on the Bible.

I suspect the Roman position may be a little at variance with this, but not being an RC I'm not best qualified to describe it!

Well indeed. My Bible is actually different to yours. We have some extra books. Councils agreed which books went into the bible. How did they make their choice? Couldn't have been based on the bible?!

Becky - I'm not a catholic, so dont have that definition of baptism. If I was baptised by non (or nominally) christian parents, who stopped thaking me to church, can it mean anything to me? No, I dont think so. But can I choose a baptism now to affirm the faith in CHrist which I have discovered for myself - well, yes, I think I can/

Well yes harrisey. That was sort of my point. Your first baptism wasn't meaningful to you. So I don't see why you wouldn't want to be baptised as you see it as an affirmation of your faith

You asked where WE stood, so I said where I stand.

I'm sorry. I missed the bit that you had already been christened. I think christ recognises one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. So, I think you should be baptised only once. But,perhaps you are missing some sort of confirmation? I don't know if the Baptist church does confirmation, though.

Does the Baptist church only recognise it's own Baptisms? Or, as Uwila says "one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins", as in the creed?

I'm shamefully ignorant.

Found this for you

'What About Other Views on Baptism?

Baptists recognise that other Christians, churches and denominations have different views about when baptism should happen. Baptist churches respond to those from other traditions in different ways.

Membership
Many churches (often called ?open membership churches?) will welcome into membership those who have been baptised as a small child, recognising that this baptism was a significant part of the person?s journey of faith. In some Baptist churches, however, membership is only available to those who have been baptised as a believer.
Leadership and Ministry
Most Baptist churches require all or most of their leaders (elders or deacons) to be baptised as a believer. In addition, the Baptist Union of Great Britain only accredits ministers who have been baptised as a believer.
Re-baptism
Because Baptists hold to the view that baptism is for believers, many churches will be willing to (re)baptise a person who has come to faith even if they were baptised as a small child. Some churches, however, will resist this out of respect for the practices of other denominations and the individuals on journey of faith.'

So the answer is, 'It depends on the specific Baptist Church'

Thanks mb!

So for example, I used to go to a baptist chuch, I was not a full member because I had not been baptised. My Mother was allowed to be a full member as she had been christened as a Methodist.

HTH

Becky, the contents of the New Testament were agreed at the Council of Carthage in 397. A council of Jewish elders had agreed the contents of their Bible (our old testament) in 90 and 118. The Christian Bible that came out of those councils is the one you might call a 'Protestant' Bible today.

The Apocryphal books were always there, on the sidelines, and kept around as being 'possibly of some use', especially as they record Jewish history in the 400 years before Christ. But they came under sustained attack during the Reformation and have had ever-decreasing interest ever since - except for the Roman church, which only decided to declare the apocrypha scriptural as late as 1546, at the Council of Trent. This for me is a big problem with the Catholic tendency to esteem 'Church tradition' so highly. Your own Catholic scholar, Jerome, himself said the apocryphal books should not be included in the Bible - in fact it was he who coined the term 'apocrypha', in order to set them aside from the main body of scripture. So when the Council of Trent decided to formally adopt the apocrypha as scripture, leading to the publication of the Douay-Rheims Bible in 1609, which for the first time scattered the apocryphal books among the rest of the OT, the Roman church really just got its own tradition in a bit of a muddle.

Incidentally, I should clarify, Councils agreed the contents of the New Testament, they did not select them. It seems the books themselves had already entered into wide acceptance in the young church, on their own virtue - something which I consider to be an inspired act of God.

I hold the Bible to be the supreme, reliable authority on all matters of Christian faith and conduct. It records the teachings of Jesus himself, and those closest to him who were inspired by his Spirit to write down things that were useful not just to their original audiences, but to those of us who would follow. What it says about Baptism - just to drag this back on topic ;) - is right from the horse's mouth. Everything God wants us to know about baptism is there in the scriptures, and I believe that the scriptures, when read alone and regarded above any church tradition, modern or ancient, speak very clearly on this topic.

By the way, the apocrypha doesn't say anything about baptism. The only real use of the apocrypha is if you need verses to justify believing in purgatory, or praying for the souls of the dead.

Hmmm. We'll agree to disagree on the role of tradition then bobsdad.

I'm not sure about the "inspired Act of God" argument though. It does seem to muddy the waters of bible-based christianity.

Agreeing to disagree is normally my starting assumption when chatting on forums Becky. These are interesting places for sharing ideas, but I think it takes more than a text conversation with a stranger to change a point of view!

The thing about the origin of the Bible is, it has to have started somewhere. What it says of itself is that All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Peter 3:16). This of course is a circular argument, because the Bible testifies of its own reliability, but it's the best we can do. The precise process by which we came to have the Bible is secondary to the fact that we have it by inspiration of God.