Baptism

[Oddish]

Never been baptised.

 

[Inkachu]

If it comes up within your family, I'd just say in a gentle, loving way "I don't believe the same way that you believe. We just have to agree to believe differently. I'll respect your beliefs, and I hope you'll respect mine."

And then I'd set up a time to get baptized

I was baptized when I was a kid, too. I was old enough to understand it, but I was kinda just doing it because it was what a good little Christian girl should do; it wasn't especially personal or meaningful to me. I got baptized again when I was 20 and I had a real, genuine relationship with God and wanted to finally confess my faith and new life publicly. Besides, it's a commandment, and I obey God.

For those who say "I don't understand infant baptism" - it's because some Christians believe that baptism cleanses babies of "original sin", so that if that child dies, they won't go to hell.

A statement by the Roman Catholic Church: "Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called... The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth."

Like most theological debates, it's mostly based on how people interpret various Scriptures. The Bible says to have your 'whole household' baptised; some people think that means babies, some people think it means everyone in the house, when they're old enough to understand on their own. Other Scriptures say 'repent and be baptized'; obviously a baby can't repent of anything, so people believe the two actions (repentance and baptism) should happen together. Etc, etc, etc. There is no specific Scripture that I know of, that ever mentions a baby being baptised. 'Whole household' or 'whole family' does not imply any infants are present.

What IS specifically mentioned regarding babies, is circumcision and dedication at 8 days of age. However, these were Jewish practices, and there's no commandment for Gentiles (non-Jews) to practice these.

I personally think that blessing and dedicating children is awesome and powerful, and transcends all denominations. My son was blessed as an infant, and I'm constantly dedicating him to God as he grows up.

 

[Marycita]

Never been baptised.

Ever thought about it?

If it comes up within your family, I'd just say in a gentle, loving way "I don't believe the same way that you believe. We just have to agree to believe differently. I'll respect your beliefs, and I hope you'll respect mine."

And then I'd set up a time to get baptized

Thanks

I think the next time my church is doing baptisms is in July or something



(oooooooo I like that smiley)

 

[Luther073082]

tell me luther, are you like CoC folks and the like who believe that a person must be baptized by water to get to heaven?

No not an absolute must but it clearly plays a role in salvation.

Jesus said "He who belives and is baptized will be saved, he who does not belive will be condemned."

Now those who think baptism has no role in salvation are clearly wrong because Jesus specifically mention baptism in being saved. If it had no role he wouldn't have even brought it up.

BUT Jesus did not say he who is not baptized will be condemned.

So how should we understand this. Well I would submit that under most circumstances baptism is necessary.

When we read the scriptures when someone converted they immediatly desired to be baptised and had it done immediatly. They didn't wait around for years to think about this or try to time a perfect time to be baptized. No the perfect time the time to be baptized was NOW. Not in a year, not in 5 years. NOW

Now are there people out there who could be saved without being baptized. Yes, I would consider that if someone was converted but had not had any real time to be baptized before their death. Say they died in a car accident on their way to being baptized. Clearly the effort to be baptized and follow God's word was met.

When it comes to children the word isn't clear. An infant that died before he could be baptised we have to just trust in God and his mercy. I would assume based on God's mercy that if the infant would have had faith later in life had he/she continued to live would be saved. As God clearly knows what would have become of them.

Older children who have faith but their parents either don't belive in children being baptised or have non Christian parents we can again assume God's mercy upon belivers.

But let me also say this. I don't belive God will save those who are "Christian" but choose to not be baptized soon after their conversion. (If they havn't been already) Baptism is a command from God and everything in the bible shows he expects the command to be followed ASAP.

So I don't belive that God saves those who take his command of baptism so lightly as they wait around for years and years "for the right time." If you are a Christian and belive in God's commands and have not already been baptized, the time to be baptized is NOW.

 

[ceh85]

At risk of derailing the thread.. if you haven't found a denomination whose beliefs you feel comfortable with yet, should you wait til you find it before you get baptized, or is baptism just a recognition that you have been born-again as a Christian, not necessarily into a specific denomination?

 

[Allen1901]

At risk of derailing the thread.. if you haven't found a denomination whose beliefs you feel comfortable with yet, should you wait til you find it before you get baptized, or is baptism just a recognition that you have been born-again as a Christian, not necessarily into a specific denomination?

That's a good question. I would wait.

 

[Labayu]

I've been thinking a lot about this for a while now...

I grew up Catholic, so I was baptized as a baby, but it's really been on my heart that I should be baptized...

My hang up is my family. And I know that it's not for them, so it shouldn't matter...Maybe I just need to get over it

But really, I don't know how they will take that. My dad is still bummed out that I never made my confirmation. He's constantly trying to get me to go to church with him again.

My mom was cleaning out some old stuff lately (the woman's a pack rat ) and she came across my baptism hanging thing my grandmother made me. And she asked me if I wanted to hang it in my room. my reaction was like "Why" (I know, snotty )....and she looked really disappointed and was like "I just thought it would be a nice way to remember your baptism."

But that's the thing - I don't remember my baptism - and I don't think of it as mine...I didn't tell my mom that though...

I don't know..I guess I'm just wondering if anyone has any thoughts...or similar experiences...

OR if you wanna talk about your baptism in general..that would be cool too

I'm Anglican, Church of England and I was baptised as a kid in Westminster Abby... don't know whether my perspective comes from the idea that you can't beat being baptised in the palce that they've crowened the Kings and Queens of England for 1,000+ years or not but it probablly has

Ultimately do what YOU feel you need to do. I totally acknowledge infant baptizams because I think that parents have spiritual authority over their kids... like the Roman in the NT who believed and his whole family were saved... it waasn't that they made an individual commitment eah- he told them that the family was converting... and they did...

Western 20th Centuray civilization and America in particular has a very individulistic streak. Personally I think it's not biblical but if your concentence makes you want your "own" baptism then do it. I guess it's easier to accept infant baptism if your parents are full on Christians and raise you to love Jesus as mine did?

 

[lostaquarium]

I think it's cool that you want to get baptised! I think that baptism should come after belief, and is a sign of belief. Jesus said, "Believe and be baptised". Therefore (in my view) the "valid" baptism is the one performed as an informed adult.

I understand if other Christians don't agree to this view - nonetheless, it'll be a good idea for you to be baptised again because it's a celebration and a public showing of your faith! It's an opportunity to invite non-Christian friends to your church, tell everyone your testimony, and have a nice pot-luck lunch afterwards.

 

[Marycita]

I'm Anglican, Church of England and I was baptised as a kid in Westminster Abby... don't know whether my perspective comes from the idea that you can't beat being baptised in the palce that they've crowened the Kings and Queens of England for 1,000+ years or not but it probablly has

Oh! That's too cool!!

Ultimately do what YOU feel you need to do. I totally acknowledge infant baptizams because I think that parents have spiritual authority over their kids... like the Roman in the NT who believed and his whole family were saved... it waasn't that they made an individual commitment eah- he told them that the family was converting... and they did...

Western 20th Centuray civilization and America in particular has a very individulistic streak. Personally I think it's not biblical but if your concentence makes you want your "own" baptism then do it. I guess it's easier to accept infant baptism if your parents are full on Christians and raise you to love Jesus as mine did?

Yeah...maybe that does make a difference...

thanks

I think it's cool that you want to get baptised! I think that baptism should come after belief, and is a sign of belief. Jesus said, "Believe and be baptised". Therefore (in my view) the "valid" baptism is the one performed as an informed adult.

I understand if other Christians don't agree to this view - nonetheless, it'll be a good idea for you to be baptised again because it's a celebration and a public showing of your faith! It's an opportunity to invite non-Christian friends to your church, tell everyone your testimony, and have a nice pot-luck lunch afterwards.

haha Never thought about that idea

 

[Quoth]

Marycita,

If you sincerely feel the Lord calling you to be re-baptized, you would be a fool not to do it. There is always a blessing in obedience to God, even if there's no recourse for inaction because of His mercy.

 

[Wren]

If it's important to you to be baptized again, I'd do it.

I was baptized when I was 10 years old. I was raised in a Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, where we were taught that baptism should come after a declaration of faith...which I made when I was 8 years old.

I'm currently looking for a home church and have been very drawn (led, maybe?) to United Methodists churches. I researched the denomination and saw that they believe in infant baptism. It feels odd to me to baptize a person who doesn't understand the significance of the event/ceremony, but I'm trying to be open to learning more about why some people believe in infant baptism. So, I appreciate reading Luther's (and any other) perspective on the issue.

 

[scraparcs]

On one hand, it seems that you need to be baptized for your spiritual growth. On the other hand, if I were your family, I would be somewhat offended that you felt a need to be baptized again (what, the first time wasn't good enough?) and would probably be offended by attending a re-baptism.

Be gracious, and it's sometimes better to forge bonds with family than necessarily agree with the theology presented.

 

[Marycita]

On one hand, it seems that you need to be baptized for your spiritual growth. On the other hand, if I were your family, I would be somewhat offended that you felt a need to be baptized again (what, the first time wasn't good enough?) and would probably be offended by attending a re-baptism.

Well, that's what I'm worried about...but at the same time, I don't want to not do it because I'm worried about what my family thinks, if it's what God wants me to do.

I've done that too many times in my life

 

[Qyöt27]

I'm currently looking for a home church and have been very drawn (led, maybe?) to United Methodists churches. I researched the denomination and saw that they believe in infant baptism. It feels odd to me to baptism a person who doesn't understand the significance of the event/ceremony, but I'm trying to be open to learning more about why some people believe in infant baptism. So, I appreciate reading Luther's (and any other) perspective on the issue.

Well, the UMC (amongst other Methodist churches and Wesleyan traditions) view baptism as a sacrament. Which basically means that the view is that it's something God does, not something we do, and it's not merely a symbolic act. Baptism and Communion being sacraments are both things we inherited from Anglicanism. This underlies why Methodists object to rebaptism (unless the previous one wasn't Trinitarian, which I understand is one of those cases that it is permissible to baptize someone again): He did it right the first time. Another way to see it would be like that of drinking water - infants and young children don't know why they get thirsty, but it wouldn't be right to deny them that, as a parental duty. Or more pithy statements like "a little water goes a long way" (aside from obvious pun there on the fact that Methodists generally pour or sprinkle rather than immerse, although we'll accommodate however the person wants to be baptized).

Now, Methodists don't really adhere to the idea of original sin in the form that it's something separate or distinct from our sinful nature, and don't view baptism as the remedy for that (the counteraction to that is actually prevenient grace*, which is distributed to all - infant baptism is sometimes treated as representative of this grace, but this, the idea of not holding to the traditional idea of original sin, or even most non-core ideas, are almost always best prefixed with 'generally' when talking about Methodism). 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. Again generally, Methodists tend to accept that there's a point where a person becomes spiritually cognizant, and if they die prior to this point, God will save them (i.e. Accountability doctrine) - regardless of whether they've been baptized. They may not give it a formal name, though.

*Prevenient grace is what enables Man to look for God (Methodists are Arminian, or technically Wesleyan-Arminian, in that we still believe in free will; the idea of total depravity, that Man cannot choose God on His own, was something Arminius agreed with, with prevening grace what God pours out to allow us to then make the choice), Justifying and Sanctifying grace are the other two, and are generically, the conversion experience and the growth toward holiness.

Well, that's what I'm worried about...but at the same time, I don't want to not do it because I'm worried about what my family thinks, if it's what God wants me to do.

I've done that too many times in my life

The best advice, as redundant as it may be, would be to pray about it. Specifically, to pray that He can help you through the uncertainty over this. If you still feel led to be baptized, then go for it. It would also maybe help to express this uncertainty with your family, even if for no other reason than to make them aware of what you're going through concerning this.

 

[JasperJackson]

I was baptised as an infant, but never had any faith of my own until recently. In fact most of my adult life I was an atheist. Once I had my own faith and was mature enough to fully understand my faith I decided to get baptised. This was part of a normal Sunday service and involved me giving a brief talk explaining why I was getting baptised.

My parents are really only "cultural" Christians and don't attend church. But they're supportive and came to my baptism, so it was really good for them to come to church as part of a normal service and hear the gospel preached when they otherwise would never hear it.

I think it's really important to be able to explain why you want to get baptised. I don't mean explain here in CF (although that might be good for practice) but you need to explain to friends and family why you're doing it.

 

[Marycita]

Good for you!

And that's awesome your parents were supportive about it

Yeah definitely ...thank you

 

[Wren]

Well, the UMC (amongst other Methodist churches and Wesleyan traditions) view baptism as a sacrament. Which basically means that the view is that it's something God does, not something we do, and it's not merely a symbolic act. Baptism and Communion being sacraments are both things we inherited from Anglicanism. This underlies why Methodists object to rebaptism (unless the previous one wasn't Trinitarian, which I understand is one of those cases that it is permissible to baptize someone again): He did it right the first time. Another way to see it would be like that of drinking water - infants and young children don't know why they get thirsty, but it wouldn't be right to deny them that, as a parental duty. Or more pithy statements like "a little water goes a long way" (aside from obvious pun there on the fact that Methodists generally pour or sprinkle rather than immerse, although we'll accommodate however the person wants to be baptized).

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?

 

[Luther073082]

At risk of derailing the thread.. if you haven't found a denomination whose beliefs you feel comfortable with yet, should you wait til you find it before you get baptized, or is baptism just a recognition that you have been born-again as a Christian, not necessarily into a specific denomination?

There is no Lutheran baptism, Roman Catholic Baptism, Orthodox Baptism, Baptist Baptism, Anglican Baptism.

We have one Lord, one Baptism.

So long as you are baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it does not matter who baptised you (even if he is a non-believer) Because it is God's work that takes place in baptism.

So even if you arn't sure about what denomination you want to be in you should be baptised anyways and figure that out later.

I was baptised by a Roman Catholic priest. But it was made clear that there is no reason to be re-baptized.

To baptize people specifically into the Lutheran church and make those who have been baptized elsewhere be rebaptized would be the same as saying that God is only at work in our church. So we don't rebaptized those who have already been baptized elsewhere in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

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 can't speak for the UMC but Lutherans belive it has a role in 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?

Where do you see "baby dedication" in the bible.

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.

 

[ceh85]

There is no Lutheran baptism, Roman Catholic Baptism, Orthodox Baptism, Baptist Baptism, Anglican Baptism.

We have one Lord, one Baptism.

So long as you are baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it does not matter who baptised you (even if he is a non-believer) Because it is God's work that takes place in baptism.

So even if you arn't sure about what denomination you want to be in you should be baptised anyways and figure that out later.

I was baptised by a Roman Catholic priest. But it was made clear that there is no reason to be re-baptized.

To baptize people specifically into the Lutheran church and make those who have been baptized elsewhere be rebaptized would be the same as saying that God is only at work in our church. So we don't rebaptized those who have already been baptized elsewhere in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Thanks for your reply. Just wanted to check one thing though, did you mean that if you have been baptized at all you don't need to be re-baptized? I was baptized by a Roman Catholic priest when I was a few weeks old so just wondering.

 

[Luther073082]

Thanks for your reply. Just wanted to check one thing though, did you mean that if you have been baptized at all you don't need to be re-baptized? I was baptized by a Roman Catholic priest when I was a few weeks old so just wondering.

In my and other Lutheran understandings of baptism that would be correct.

God is at work in baptism and does not make mistakes.

The only time you would need to consider rebaptism is if the people who baptized you called upon a pseudo Christian version of the trinity. (Which would not happen in the Roman Catholic church)

An example of this is some extremely liberal churchs may baptize in the name of "creator, redeemer, and spirit"

However Jesus tells us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And so long as you where baptized in that name, God has worked in your baptism.