Baptism

[Wren]

Baptism certainly is among other things something which makes a person a member of God's family. But Baptism alone is not going to make you a member of the family. Faith is another part. Just like having a last name does not make you a part of a family that you have disowned.

Its a complete misunderstanding of baptism of being a symbol. And this is of course what has led to the error of not baptizing children.

Children are included in the "all nations" whom Christ tells us to make diciples of and baptize.

Thank you. That (the bolded) makes a lot of sense.

 

[Wren]

It is still viewed as a means of grace, though. Confirmation, usually sometime between the ages of 10 and 16, completes the process started with baptism as an infant. For an adult, the two occur at the same time.

I reread your post after reading Luther's response to mine. Both his post and the part I quoted above of your's clears things up a lot for me and answers the question I asked:

"Are you saying that by them being baptized, God is already accepting them to be part of his family? How, when we have free will (choice) to choose to be part of God's family or not and infant's are not in a place to do that?"

So, the free will part comes in with confirmation. That's where you can choose to claim God's family as your own, unless you choose not to confirm and change the name you were given at birth (reject the baptism).

Thank you.

 

[Irrkunst]

I've never understood the need for Christians who were baptized as babies to get rebaptized as adults. You don't see Jews getting recircumcised when they become more devout.

By the way, Luther is on fire in this thread. Great stuff, Luther.

 

[Quoth]

You don't see Jews getting recircumcised when they become more devout.

That would be difficult...

 

[Qyöt27]

The church I grew up in did not have sacraments and was pretty informal compared to UMC and I was taught that baptism is a symbolic act. So, maybe this sounds dumb, but could you explain what you mean by the bolded. I guess I'm having trouble seeing it as not being a symbolic act, if it's not a means of salvation or does UMC believe that baptism is necessary for salvation.

I also have trouble with the 2nd bolded. Is infant baptism a way of committing them to being part of God's family? I'm guessing no, because that's baby dedication not infant baptism and would be symbolic. Are you saying that by them being baptized, God is already accepting them to be part of his family? How, when we have free will (choice) to choose to be part of God's family or not and infant's are not in a place to do that?

Even though you already said it was answered, I'll still reply.

The UMC, to the best of my knowledge anyway, does not pin anything regarding salvation to baptism. And as far as the difference between a sacrament and an ordinance (which is the same as saying something is symbolic or not, just in more technical language - an ordinance is symbolic, sacraments are not), it has to do with the idea that God partakes in whatever it is. The UMC only recognizes Baptism and Communion as sacraments - I'm really only more familiar with the way Communion is handled, namely that the UMC adheres to a view often called Anamnetical Real Presence. The point is that, in Communion, Christ is believed to be present, but unlike in other traditions like Catholicism or Lutheranism, the hows and whats of the process are left undefined (there's actually several threads on this topic going on right now in Wesley's Parish if you want to see this explained better and from other Methodist perspectives).

I just ran by that because like Communion, in Baptism it's also considered that God is the one doing the administering, through us/through common means. There is overlap in what dedications and baptisms are (and the Church of the Nazarene, which is of the same Wesleyan tradition Methodism is, does both baptisms and dedications based on what the family wants), in that it is the commitment of the family to raise the child in faith, but the difference between considering baptism a sacrament or not is, much like what you said, God claiming the child into His family, or an illustration of His promises of grace. But better said, it's that the benefits of the baptism are coming from God, and that He can impart grace through them. If you look at the Wikipedia page (yeah, I know) on Infant baptism there's a section that contrasts the approaches by different churches, with Catholicism, Orthodoxy/other ancient traditions, Lutheranism, Methodism, and Presbyterianism having their own sections.

The real underlying point is that ordinances are symbolic (and often performed because of the obligation laid out in Scriptural examples taking place), whereas sacraments are not just symbolic. They do symbolize many of the same things and the same Scriptures where examples are given are pointed to, but there's also a belief that there is more to the practice, spiritually, than that. The ways in which it acts spiritually differs from denomination to denomination, though. There is probably some degree of Apostolic Succession belief in there (even though Methodists don't hold to a stringent idea of Succession like Anglicans do - heck, the reason Methodism isn't still part of the Anglican Church is because of the American Methodists breaking Succession so that we'd have ordained clergy in the U.S., since the Church of England wasn't sending any over in the late 1700s and the atmosphere here was actually dangerous for them during, and probably even for some time after, the American Revolution).

A comprehensive FAQ is actually here (this is the one UMC.org links to as well):
Worship - FAQs about Baptism, Membership, and Salvation

Three points (bolded parts mine):
"Q: Does baptism mean that I am saved?

A: No, salvation is a lifelong process during which we must continue to respond to God's grace. Baptism offers the promise that the Holy Spirit will always be working in our lives, but salvation requires our acceptance of that grace, trust in Christ, and ongoing growth in holiness as long as we live.

Q: Do I have to be baptized in order to be saved?

A: No, but baptism is a gift of God's grace to be received as part of the journey of salvation. To refuse to accept baptism is to reject one of the means of grace that God offers us.

Q: May we have our baby dedicated instead of baptized?

A: No. The theological understandings of the two services are very different. Dedication is a human act -- something we pledge or give to God. Baptism is a divine act, a pledge and gift God gives to us. Baptism of infants includes the reaffirmation of the vows of the baptismal covenant by parents, sponsors, and the congregation; but chiefly it celebrates what God is doing and will do in the life of the infant. "

That puts it better than I could, not to mention far more succinctly. I have trouble sometimes making my explanations clear, and almost feel like I was talking myself into circles up there.

 

[FlatpickingJD]

I've never understood the need for Christians who were baptized as babies to get rebaptized as adults.

The idea behind getting baptized a second time is that, at least as it's explained at the church where I worship, infant baptism reflects the faith of the parents, not that of the one being baptized. We treat it as an ordinance, not a sacrament. They do not, however, require anyone who was baptized as an infant to be rebaptized however.

Elsewhere in this thread it was stated that we need to be baptized shortly after our salvation experience, else somehow we're being disobedient. After I was saved, I wanted to join the Catholic Church and they only do baptisms after the initiate goes through the RCIA process. As I'd missed the beginning of the class by a couple of months, that meant I had to wait another several months for it to come around again. For me, it was not a matter of disobedience, it was one of obedience, to the RCC and its various rites and liturgical calendar. It was a pretty pressing issue to me, however, so I wound up getting baptized elsewhere.

You don't see Jews getting recircumcised when they become more devout.

That would be difficult...

When a Jewish male becomes Baal Teshuvah, he does not undergo a second circumcision, that is true (circumcision is a bris btw). But a circumcised Gentile convert to Judaism will undergo a ritual or token circumcision. A single drop of blood is drawn and the blessings normally made at a bris are pronounced. The circumcision is part of the covenant with God, and this token circumcision reflects a desire on the part of the convert to become part of the Jewish Covenant.

 

[Luther073082]

I reread your post after reading Luther's response to mine. Both his post and the part I quoted above of your's clears things up a lot for me and answers the question I asked:

"Are you saying that by them being baptized, God is already accepting them to be part of his family? How, when we have free will (choice) to choose to be part of God's family or not and infant's are not in a place to do that?"

So, the free will part comes in with confirmation. That's where you can choose to claim God's family as your own, unless you choose not to confirm and change the name you were given at birth (reject the baptism).

Thank you.

Essentially yes.

Confirmation is in part a public affirmation of your faith but also in Lutheran churchs we see it as taking ownership of your own faith life.

Before your confirmation your faith life is mostly the responsibility of your parents. Its their job to see to it that you are educated in the word and attend worship regularly.

When a child is confirmed, it esentially says you are now old enough to take more of the responsibility for yourself. After confirmation, "formal" sunday school is typically ended and they are encouraged to take part in youth groups with older kids and bible study with them. (And sometimes they are encouraged to bible study with adults)

Because of the nature of communion in the Lutheran church some churchs reserve first communion for confirmation. Others will do communion training earlier (like 5th grade) and confirm later on.

Most Lutheran children are confirmed sometime between 7th and 9th grade.

Adults being confirmed basically means they have publically agreed to the church's confession of faith and are now offical members of the church. There is not as much emphasis on this though. I was confirmed at my old church, but since changing churchs I have not been offically confirmed at my new church. Since I'm allowed in this church to commune, I'm waiting til after I get married so Melissa and I can go through it together.

BTW what was already said before about "means of grace" is still true in Lutheran churchs. (I'm actually sort of surprised because I thought that was mainly a Lutheran thing).

 

[Irrkunst]

When a Jewish male becomes Baal Teshuvah, he does not undergo a second circumcision, that is true (circumcision is a bris btw). But a circumcised Gentile convert to Judaism will undergo a ritual or token circumcision. A single drop of blood is drawn and the blessings normally made at a bris are pronounced. The circumcision is part of the covenant with God, and this token circumcision reflects a desire on the part of the convert to become part of the Jewish Covenant.

That is not a Jew getting recircumsised. Once you've fulfilled the covenant you don't need to do it again. It seems to me that baptism is the same.

 

[mina]

blind post:
I grew up in the Methodist church. I was baptized at age 10 when i joined the church. It meant nothing to me. I never ever ever remember hearing that you could have a personal relationship with Christ. I got baptized (sprinkled) b/c it was what every other kid in my sunday school class was doing. I had no idea what it meant or why I was doing it. After I got saved I felt a tug on my heart to be baptized as an act of obedience and outward testament to the faith I now had as well as an identification with Christ. I got baptized (immersed) again.

If you feel God is leading you to be baptized; then be obedient to His leading.