My wife won't pray with me

Conservativation said:

Do both baptisms and dont worry about it. Let those who take issue explain why NOT to do both. (well the 2nd one will be the childs choice)
I have to say that IF you suggest its your choice either way, baby or adult, then there truly is no difference
The choice would be, do you baptize the baby.....or not....really, the rest would be up to the child

Click to expand...

I completely agree!

Luther073082 said:

I don't have much writings directly from Luther on the topic of the unbaptised, so its hard to say what his view as to where they would be is.

The early Lutheran writings seem to indicate that baptism is required for salvation, however in talks with many confessional Lutheran pastors and others, I'm told that those writings really mean that *in order to be assured* of salvation, one must both be baptised and have faith. Beyond that we do not know.

For me, ultimiatly baptism is part of obedience. It is clear to me that scripture commands baptism. So while I have my views as to what baptism is and what it does. *Being a means of grace* But ulitimatly it does not matter what you think baptism does or doesn't do, because it was commanded by Jesus. Plus in all the instances of conversions in Acts, baptism follows immediatly after a conversion. You do not need to know *WHY* in order to follow a command. You just need to do.

So I regard those who claim to have faith but have never been baptised and making little to no effort to be, as being almost assuredly doomed to hell. If one claims faith in Christ but can not follow the most simple of his commands *that is to be baptised* I can not in my mind consider that to be a true faith in the true Christ, perhaps a faith in a made up Christ that never gave the command to be baptised, but the true Christ gave that command.

While true we can't always follow all of Christ's commands and we are sinners, and even repetative sinners, there are few who don't recognize the difference between. "I disobeyed you God, God help me stop this bad behavior and obey better." and "I disobeyed you God, and quite frankly I don't care." I honestly can not find an easier command that Jesus ever gave then "to be baptised." And since because of the dual meanings of the greek word, I don't consider full immersion to be necessary. So fear of water I don't consider to be a good or logical reason either.

This is perhaps the biggest problem I have with the Salvation Army. They do good work for their neighbors and aid the poor, and few can look down upon that. But at the same time, they do not baptise and ignore the command to baptise.

Click to expand...

If as you rightly recount here, baptism was an act immediately following conversion (Im using IF for this point, not to refute whats stated in Acts)....then how can infant baptism be recommended as you did on page one?
I cant square those two things. Help me out.

Let me be clear though where Im coming from...

When I first became a Christian I was swept into the push button acceptance and rejection, vehement, of so many churchy things, a la Baptist and pseudo Baptist non denoms that I like sadly so many was wrapped up in that stuff. (all while saying I was proudly not a denominational(ist).....sheesh how odd) As I grew and matured in my own faith, sans allowing my in laws and extended uber Baptist/non-denom family influence me (wife included though she too has gotten away from it) I started thinking how silly I was about it. So, we were trying churches when we moved here and tried a place that is Presbyterian, but calls itslef just "Hope Church"....we are still there and like the church and they do baby baptism, and I thought what the heck was I so worked up AGAINST something that is a comfort to parents, and a nice rite of passage thing. I don't know hearts of people and Im just not going to be that way. I have to add, Im not going to accept Lutheran or Catholic or Church of Christ, or the Holy Spirit worshiping churches, or any of it in a rote way and especially not with the possessive exclusivity so many outwardly express. . WAY to much dogma/ritual as necessity for my taste. I always find it fascinating, and I even wrote an article that was in the baptist Standard once, about this. That people who hold these denominational beliefs can hold them AND say they choose to not push it. How in the world does THAT work? As Christians (sit aside denomination) we BETTER care what we say and do as witness, so how much more, if you are in one of these groups that literally say, your are IN their group, or you are hell bound....how can one hold that belief and then comport amongst the "heathens" of other denoms and NOT push it? Whats up with that? If I felt that way, I sure would not be able to figuratively hold hands with other "Christians" and talk commonality while the same folks whose hand I'm holding i think are lost! Just bizarre, that, to me....

So, that's why I said what I did, about both. Because I agree, baptism is at conversion, but I also am not so married to my own preference that Id base excluding one or the other, even though there was a time I indeed would have done so.

Conservativation said:

If as you rightly recount here, baptism was an act immediately following conversion (Im using IF for this point, not to refute whats stated in Acts)....then how can infant baptism be recommended as you did on page one?
I cant square those two things. Help me out.

Click to expand...

Ok read Acts closely. . . many of the people who where converted where baptised, and then said basically "Ok come to my house and baptise my family." Then the entire family was baptised.

The family was never given a chance to convert or anything. Only the head of the family was converted and that was good enough to baptize the family. Which especially given the time its easy enough to presume that there where children.

When I first became a Christian I was swept into the push button acceptance and rejection, vehement, of so many churchy things, a la Baptist and pseudo Baptist non denoms that I like sadly so many was wrapped up in that stuff. (all while saying I was proudly not a denominational(ist).....sheesh how odd) As I grew and matured in my own faith, sans allowing my in laws and extended uber Baptist/non-denom family influence me (wife included though she too has gotten away from it) I started thinking how silly I was about it. So, we were trying churches when we moved here and tried a place that is Presbyterian, but calls itslef just "Hope Church"....we are still there and like the church and they do baby baptism, and I thought what the heck was I so worked up AGAINST something that is a comfort to parents, and a nice rite of passage thing. I don't know hearts of people and Im just not going to be that way. I have to add, Im not going to accept Lutheran or Catholic or Church of Christ, or the Holy Spirit worshiping churches, or any of it in a rote way and especially not with the possessive exclusivity so many outwardly express. . WAY to much dogma/ritual as necessity for my taste. I always find it fascinating, and I even wrote an article that was in the baptist Standard once, about this. That people who hold these denominational beliefs can hold them AND say they choose to not push it. How in the world does THAT work? As Christians (sit aside denomination) we BETTER care what we say and do as witness, so how much more, if you are in one of these groups that literally say, your are IN their group, or you are hell bound....how can one hold that belief and then comport amongst the "heathens" of other denoms and NOT push it? Whats up with that? If I felt that way, I sure would not be able to figuratively hold hands with other "Christians" and talk commonality while the same folks whose hand I'm holding i think are lost! Just bizarre, that, to me....

Click to expand...

See this is where you are misinterpreting me.

1. I don't belive non-Lutheran Christians are necessarily hell bound. That actually is against the doctrine of the Lutheran church as we belive that all trinitarian Christians who belive Jesus to be their Lord and savior are saved through their faith and his work on the cross.

We also belive that any baptism that was done "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is a valid baptism and will work as a means of grace, even if the person performing the baptism or the baptised is a heretic, heterodox, apostate, unbeliever or whatever.

Also if you look a bit more on the Single's forum I'm a bit more pushy on my denomination. (Even if I don't belive you need to be in it to be saved.) I just havn't been as pushy about it here for some reason or another.

So my advice to the OP was based on the worldly standard of "whats the best thing to do." But in terms of spiritual standards, I would always recommend the infant be baptized. To me its clear from scripture that baptism is an element in salvation and a outright command.

Luther073082 said:

Ok read Acts closely. . . many of the people who where converted where baptised, and then said basically "Ok come to my house and baptise my family." Then the entire family was baptised.

The family was never given a chance to convert or anything. Only the head of the family was converted and that was good enough to baptize the family. Which especially given the time its easy enough to presume that there where children.



See this is where you are misinterpreting me.

1. I don't belive non-Lutheran Christians are necessarily hell bound. That actually is against the doctrine of the Lutheran church as we belive that all trinitarian Christians who belive Jesus to be their Lord and savior are saved through their faith and his work on the cross.

We also belive that any baptism that was done "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is a valid baptism and will work as a means of grace, even if the person performing the baptism or the baptised is a heretic, heterodox, apostate, unbeliever or whatever.

Also if you look a bit more on the Single's forum I'm a bit more pushy on my denomination. (Even if I don't belive you need to be in it to be saved.) I just havn't been as pushy about it here for some reason or another.

So my advice to the OP was based on the worldly standard of "whats the best thing to do." But in terms of spiritual standards, I would always recommend the infant be baptized. To me its clear from scripture that baptism is an element in salvation and a outright command.

Click to expand...

I wasn't really challenging you on the denom thing, because as you say, Ive not seen it being pushed as such. You did make me think about it though, and my questions/comments stand as open even if not your stance.

I have read Acts closely and I know what you are saying. I was reflecting back what you said, not what Acts says. I have zero hill to die on about baptism. I disagree with you, but Im not dogged.

Well there is one thing, there is a group that broke off the Church of Christ , called the "Boston Movement" or something, and they have this thing that says that pretty much everyone is damned, that wasn't Baptised "in Jesus name"...and they mean some very literal thing by that.

I met some guy who recruited a divorced sis in law and she went to his "church" and it got moto freaky. I was then in the hospital and the guy came to visit me, I did not know him. I was drugged, after surgery. he started yelling and preaching and nurses were staring and finally mercifully visiting hours ended and they took him away. He said he went reclusive for 20 years and emerged with this new truth and had to tell the world.

Anything for setting self apart I guess

Conservativation said:

I have read Acts closely and I know what you are saying. I was reflecting back what you said, not what Acts says. I have zero hill to die on about baptism. I disagree with you, but Im not dogged.

Click to expand...

I was mainly referring to the salvation army's practice of not baptising at all.

My point is that we can disagree as to the necessity of baptism for salvation as well as if it should be done with infants or not. I get that.

But there can be no disagreement that Jesus commanded baptism and that it was important to both him and the apostles. And if you claim to have faith but refused to be baptised, to me that nothing more then a false faith. Because a true faith seeks to be obedient. And there is no command of Jesus that I'm aware of that is more easy to follow through on then "be baptized"

And if one can not follow through on that, then when that person claims to "have faith" . . . I don't buy it I'm sorry.

You can do a lot of things and commit a lot of horrible sins and have me give you the benefit of the doubt when you claim ot have faith. With my own sins I feel I'm in no place to question that. People have weaknesses and problems I totally get that too, I have enough of my own to question others about theirs.

But there is no weakness that I'm aware of other then a complete lack of true faith that makes it difficult for a person to go be baptised.

Baptism is a mikvah.. and that included a renewing of a covenant relationship or as in many cases a new realtionship with God.. if you want your child [infant] baptised, I would say rededicate yourself also to the new task in raising the child in the way he/she should go..

Luther073082 said:

I was mainly referring to the salvation army's practice of not baptising at all.

My point is that we can disagree as to the necessity of baptism for salvation as well as if it should be done with infants or not. I get that.

But there can be no disagreement that Jesus commanded baptism and that it was important to both him and the apostles. And if you claim to have faith but refused to be baptised, to me that nothing more then a false faith. Because a true faith seeks to be obedient. And there is no command of Jesus that I'm aware of that is more easy to follow through on then "be baptized"

And if one can not follow through on that, then when that person claims to "have faith" . . . I don't buy it I'm sorry.

You can do a lot of things and commit a lot of horrible sins and have me give you the benefit of the doubt when you claim ot have faith. With my own sins I feel I'm in no place to question that. People have weaknesses and problems I totally get that too, I have enough of my own to question others about theirs.

But there is no weakness that I'm aware of other then a complete lack of true faith that makes it difficult for a person to go be baptised.

Click to expand...

Does the Salvation Army expressly NOT baptize, as in reject the notion, or they just kinda sorta dont do it. Because baptism, as you rightly observe, isnt tied to it being Sunday morning 10AM, extended family looking on, photos will come in your email and can be bought for a love offering...etc etc. They COULD be baptized.....people....attending SA yes or no? I dont know about their church, just the outreach stuff.

Conservativation said:

Does the Salvation Army expressly NOT baptize, as in reject the notion, or they just kinda sorta dont do it. Because baptism, as you rightly observe, isnt tied to it being Sunday morning 10AM, extended family looking on, photos will come in your email and can be bought for a love offering...etc etc. They COULD be baptized.....people....attending SA yes or no? I dont know about their church, just the outreach stuff.

Click to expand...

The salvation army does not perform baptisms but sells itself as an actual church.

I know its from Wikipedia but here is the quote and from my discussions with Salvation Army members its accurate.

The Salvation Army's main converts were at first alcoholics, morphine addicts, prostitutes and other "undesirables" unwelcomed into polite Christian society, which helped prompt the Booths to start their own church.[7] The Booths did not include the use of sacraments (mainly baptism and Holy Communion) in the Army's form of worship, believing that many Christians had come to rely on the outward signs of spiritual grace rather than on grace itself.[8] Other beliefs are that its members should completely refrain from drinking alcohol (Holy Communion is not practiced), smoking, taking illegal drugs and gambling

Click to expand...

They do neither baptism nor communion but consider themselves to be a church and do regular worship.

If they where just a pan Christian organization where Christians could come, serve the lord, neighbor, and eachother, but worship elsewhere, that would be GREAT. But they create themselves and operate as a church - one very focused on service. And the focus on service is great too. But if you are a church you can't ignore baptism, no matter how much you are worried about Christian's reliance on "outward signs of grace." (In italics because to a Lutheran thats out and out heresy.) If a Lutheran pastor heard me call baptism a "outward sign of grace" I would probably be cut off from the altar. (not allowed to commune)

If anyone knows that they do private baptisms, I would be happy for them to correct me on that. But my information is that they do not baptise at all.

Also they have some legalistic rules about who can marry who within the church. I find that highly legalistic, which I belive legalism should be avoided.

I think to each his own but I think that it should be based on the strong understanding of the Bible. Give your wife her space let her see god work through you.

Luther073082 said:

The salvation army does not perform baptisms but sells itself as an actual church.

I know its from Wikipedia but here is the quote and from my discussions with Salvation Army members its accurate.



They do neither baptism nor communion but consider themselves to be a church and do regular worship.

If they where just a pan Christian organization where Christians could come, serve the lord, neighbor, and eachother, but worship elsewhere, that would be GREAT. But they create themselves and operate as a church - one very focused on service. And the focus on service is great too. But if you are a church you can't ignore baptism, no matter how much you are worried about Christian's reliance on "outward signs of grace." (In italics because to a Lutheran thats out and out heresy.) If a Lutheran pastor heard me call baptism a "outward sign of grace" I would probably be cut off from the altar. (not allowed to commune)

If anyone knows that they do private baptisms, I would be happy for them to correct me on that. But my information is that they do not baptise at all.

Also they have some legalistic rules about who can marry who within the church. I find that highly legalistic, which I belive legalism should be avoided.

Click to expand...

I hate to point this out

You at once say that if you deign SAY a certain thing you'd be cut off from the alter....THEN you decry legalism

That is 2+2 = 7

Yoder777 said:

My wife grew up in a family in which religion was used as a weapon and, because of this, she's uncomfortable about sharing religious activities with me, including prayer. What should I do about this? Should I just give her space about it?

Click to expand...

As opposed to what -? Demanding she attend daily prayer sessions with you? What would that accomplish?

Yoder777 said:

Another thing that I am kind of struggling with is that while my wife believes in adult baptism, my parents are insistent on infant baptism. When our child is born, I don't know what to do about that. I'd rather do what's pleasing to my wife, but I also don't want my parents to bother me about the idea that the baby won't go to heaven if unbaptized.

Click to expand...

With which woman are you having the baby? You need to make this decision with the mother of the child.

Yoder777 said:

Another issue is that, when our child is born, my wife wants us to join a church that has more young couples with children than the one I attend now. Should I be willing to find a new church with my wife for that reason?

Click to expand...

Together you should churches in your area.

Will she pray with you if she can lead the prayer?

Why not have the children baptized as babies and as adults if they choose to? Putting some water on a child to make parents happy is not that big a deal.

Yoder777 said:

Another thing that I am kind of struggling with is that while my wife believes in adult baptism, my parents are insistent on infant baptism. When our child is born, I don't know what to do about that. I'd rather do what's pleasing to my wife, but I also don't want my parents to bother me about the idea that the baby won't go to heaven if unbaptized.

Click to expand...

Who cares what your parents think? You're an adult now. You tell them how it's going to be.

Conservativation said:

I hate to point this out

You at once say that if you deign SAY a certain thing you'd be cut off from the alter....THEN you decry legalism

That is 2+2 = 7

Click to expand...

Its not a legalism. Being invited to the sacrament of the altar is an indication that you are not only in good standing with the church but also considered to be at one with the church in doctrine. Communion is about a spiritual unity that passes all earthly understanding, and the unity applies veritcally (a unity between myself and God) and also horizontally (a unity between myself and those communing with me.) It always has been. This is true in Lutheran Churchs, Roman Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox churchs, Oriential Orthodox churchs, and even some conservative Anglican churchs.

The pastor, as the representative of the church is in charge handling the sacrament. If I where to speak an obvious heresy in front of my pastor, he'd have no choice but to cut me off from the altar, as saying such a thing would prove obviously that I'm not at one with the church.