Baptism

[Crazy Liz]

Anyways, a few years back, my parents decided we were all going to be baptized as a family. I was going through a period of not knowing what I believed on the subject (and still kinda am), but I went ahead anyways to keep the peace. I felt bad doing that, and knew I probably shouldn't have. I sort of pushed it to the back of my mind and repeated what the pastor had told me what baptism is supposed to mean.

This is really sad. The whole anabaptist idea of baptism stems from the idea that it must be a personal, individual act of faith and voluntary commitment to have any meaning.

Your story is a good illustration that even so-called believer's baptism may not actually be that.

Anabaptists might consider your second baptism no more valid than your first because in both cases it was something your parents chose for you, not something you chose for yourself as an act of faith.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I was confirmed when I was 13, we had 2 years of classes and had to write a paper at the end. I'm sorry that my sisters had to miss out on the experience (and the party and presents ). I think that the Anabaptist style churches should have something similair, just to help cure the general ignorance of today's Christians.

One thing about my particular experience, is that pastors didn't do a very good job of teaching, we didn't even learn most of the basics from Luther's small catechism. I would have been much more adament about staying if I had read it.

I grew up in a Mennonite (Anabaptist) church. Before I was baptized (the very same Sunday my Lutheran friends my age were confirmed) I had to go through a catechism class. Comparing notes with my Lutheran friends, I think it was quite comparable in its depth and rigor. I don't think it lasted 2 years, but at least several months, and we had lots of homework. We had to learn history and doctrine, etc. At the end we had to give a public confession of faith and account of our own lives to the church as a whole, and the church had to "vote" that we were eligible to be baptized.

There was a party afterwards, but not presents. Well, maybe someone in your family would give you a new Bible and/or maybe a little cross necklace. (I know, jewelry isn't really kosher in the Anabaptist tradition, but what can I say? :o )

So I can assure you that some "Anabaptist style" churches do have something similar. Or at least they used to. This was about 35 years ago. (Am I getting old, or what?)

 

[Crazy Liz]

Hey Lotar I was wondering if you use this argument for infant baptism? I agree that children can be baptized but then again Children can understand and have faith. But infants as far as we can tell do not. I know Calvin uses these verses to support his rgument for padeobaptism but I think he was really reaching.

Although I was raised in the Anabaptist tradition, this is the aspect of that tradition I now think is probably wrong. The Anabaptists define faith as an act of the intellect. One must understand to have faith. As a result, Anabaptist doctrine states that those with sufficient intellectual capacity are saved by grace through faith. But infants and retarded people who die without ever having the intellectual capacity required for faith are saved, but not through faith.

I am no longer convinced that faith depends on the intellect.

 

[Blackhawk]

Although I was raised in the Anabaptist tradition, this is the aspect of that tradition I now think is probably wrong. The Anabaptists define faith as an act of the intellect. One must understand to have faith. As a result, Anabaptist doctrine states that those with sufficient intellectual capacity are saved by grace through faith. But infants and retarded people who die without ever having the intellectual capacity required for faith are saved, but not through faith.

I am no longer convinced that faith depends on the intellect.

WellI am a baptist and we belive that faith is not just the intellect. Also we do believe that retarded people can be saved but would we baptize one that did not have the capacity to understand that gospel? no. Baptism is not reqired for salvation.

But if you say faith does not depend on the intellect then how does anyone have faith in anything that they know nothing about?

 

[Crazy Liz]

But if you say faith does not depend on the intellect then how does anyone have faith in anything that they know nothing about?

"Knowing about" something is not just intellectual, either. What made me see faith in a different light was one day when I visited a friend's Eastern Orthodox church and saw parents carrying their babies to the front of the church to receive communion. The idea of faith as trust, rather than intellectual assent suddenly clicked into place in my mind. These babies had perfect trust in their parents and their parents' God, even though they couldn't express a logical thought.

Now, I'm not saying faith is something that does not involve the intellect. It is holistic. It involves the whole person. If the intellect is lacking, trust can still exist. Faith can be accepted or rejected intelectually.

BTW, I don't think my Anabaptist forbears thought faith was solely an intellectual function, either. They just thought intellect was a necessary condition for faith.

I, OTOH, do not think any particular human capacity is a necessary condition for faith. It encompasses the whole of one's being, whether that being is mature or immature, fully functioning or impaired in some way. If I may give an example, the Bible says, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." No one interprets this verse to mean that deaf people cannot have faith.

 

[Blackhawk]

"Knowing about" something is not just intellectual, either. What made me see faith in a different light was one day when I visited a friend's Eastern Orthodox church and saw parents carrying their babies to the front of the church to receive communion. The idea of faith as trust, rather than intellectual assent suddenly clicked into place in my mind. These babies had perfect trust in their parents and their parents' God, even though they couldn't express a logical thought.

Now, I'm not saying faith is something that does not involve the intellect. It is holistic. It involves the whole person. If the intellect is lacking, trust can still exist. Faith can be accepted or rejected intelectually.

BTW, I don't think my Anabaptist forbears thought faith was solely an intellectual function, either. They just thought intellect was a necessary condition for faith.

I, OTOH, do not think any particular human capacity is a necessary condition for faith. It encompasses the whole of one's being, whether that being is mature or immature, fully functioning or impaired in some way. If I may give an example, the Bible says, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." No one interprets this verse to mean that deaf people cannot have faith.

I agree that faith and knowing are things that involves a person's whole being. Part of that being though is our intellect. The baby has to know that there is a parent in order to trust the parent. Same thing with a Christian. They need to have faith in God and part of that is knowing that he exists and in basic terms what he did. The intellect is not the only thing that faith and knowledge requires but it is not less than that. I do nto see any biblical evidence that it is not.

As far as the ones that die before they have the intellect requiredI have faith that God will show them a special kind of grace because of their situation. I can't know because there is no explicit evidence that he will. However knowing God and his nature I think that he will.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I agree that faith and knowing are things that involves a person's whole being. Part of that being though is our intellect. The baby has to know that there is a parent in order to trust the parent.

Actually, I think the baby trusts the parent before the baby even knows what a parent is. Psychological research tells us that a baby doesn't begin to "understand" that the parent is a separate person until a certain age. I submit that the baby trusts the parent immediately. The baby is completely dependent on the parent, and if the parent loves and cares for the child even minimally, the child will continue to trust. The more loving and caring the parent, the more perfect the trust. Trust doesn't increase as the child gets older, only understanding of the nature of trust.

Same thing with a Christian. They need to have faith in God and part of that is knowing that he exists and in basic terms what he did. The intellect is not the only thing that faith and knowledge requires but it is not less than that. I do nto see any biblical evidence that it is not.

How does a child know a parent exists? Does the child need to know any "basic terms" to trust the parent? Intellect is not required, but intellectual understanding develops over time.

As far as the ones that die before they have the intellect requiredI have faith that God will show them a special kind of grace because of their situation. I can't know because there is no explicit evidence that he will. However knowing God and his nature I think that he will.

I think that's what most Christians believe, and it has some appeal, especially when considering such individuals who are not part of a Christian community where God is trusted by those who do have the intellectual capacity. OTOH, Jesus said, "Unless you be converted and become as little children..."

 

[Blackhawk]

Actually, I think the baby trusts the parent before the baby even knows what a parent is. Psychological research tells us that a baby doesn't begin to "understand" that the parent is a separate person until a certain age. I submit that the baby trusts the parent immediately. The baby is completely dependent on the parent, and if the parent loves and cares for the child even minimally, the child will continue to trust. The more loving and caring the parent, the more perfect the trust. Trust doesn't increase as the child gets older, only understanding of the nature of trust.

How does a baby trust in something if it does not know that that other something exists? Trust involves a relationship with something. How do you have a relationship with something that you do not know exists. If you do not know it exists then it is not a something to you even itf it does exist. So if a baby does not know a parent exists then it can't be trusting the parent. It does not matter if the baby is dependent on the parent or not. If it does not know that the parent is something else then it can have no trust in the parent. There is no parent as far as the child is concerened before it understand the parent exists. So if there is no basic intellectual knowledge then there is no trust because we have nothing to trust.

How does a child know a parent exists? Does the child need to know any "basic terms" to trust the parent? Intellect is not required, but intellectual understanding develops over time.

Sure the baby has to know that the parent is another being and then has to put its trust in the parent. If not then there is not trust in the parent. For instance atheists are completley dependent upon God for their existence. Right? But they have no trust in God because they do not believe he exists. Same thing goes for a baby who has no idea that their parents exist.

I think that's what most Christians believe, and it has some appeal, especially when considering such individuals who are not part of a Christian community where God is trusted by those who do have the intellectual capacity. OTOH, Jesus said, "Unless you be converted and become as little children..."

I od not understand the last part here. So I can't really comment.