Differences Between Methodists and Nazarenes?

[ContraMundum]

Only reason I don't agree with that.. is because baptising a baby.. does not give them salvation.. they have to find that on their own. Of course, as infants, before the age of accountability.. they are going to go to Heaven no matter what. But, as an adult, they have to figure it out and want it on their own! I think that's why we only do dedications now. Although I agree that it is a means of grace and I believe that is the main reason parents do it. To us, it is more of a promise to raise our children in the eyes of God and help them to know God and to find their way.. it's also a promise the church makes to help raise that child to know God.

OK...fair enough, but....I can see no part in scripture that says infants cannot be saved, because they have to make a decision for Christ, or that they are born sinless and do not need to. Obviously they need salvation. In fact, the Bible speaks of them having faith "the little ones who believe in me" etc. Obviously, faith can exist outside of rational thought. This appears to me to be the reason also why the Bible gives no age of accountability. Likewise, the Bible gives us no account of "infant dedication" for Christians. How do we know when the sins of children are accountable?

The Bible says that the covenant of baptism is for our children too (Acts 2:39), and this is why Christians have always baptised their children.

Here's the problem. If all are born in sin, then all need salvation. If salvation is just about rational thought and assent to the Gospel alone then there is no offer of salvation to the mentally infirm, the very young, or the demented. However, Christ's atonement is for all, and thus God's grace is given to all in some way or another (whether you call it prevenient grace or common grace or whatever), and because of that our children and the others mentioned do not die for sins they have not committed (if indeed this doctrine is correct). But, on the other hand, if we see that God's grace is already covering the sin nature of the infant, then surely that makes them worthy recipients of God's promise, which is given and seen in baptism. This then would make baptism a means of grace, which has always been the understanding of the church. Why then would we want to reject that promise in the way God has given us? It seems to me that the trend of rejecting baptism is because people are chasing after experiences, and this culture of ours has forgotten the communal nature of the church in favour of the individualistic ideal of the modern west. In other words, I think Wesley and all the other Methodist forefathers were right about this and I think the rejection of it comes from a different place.

 

[livin4christ9203]

OK...fair enough, but....I can see no part in scripture that says infants cannot be saved, because they have to make a decision for Christ, or that they are born sinless and do not need to. Obviously they need salvation. In fact, the Bible speaks of them having faith "the little ones who believe in me" etc. Obviously, faith can exist outside of rational thought. This appears to me to be the reason also why the Bible gives no age of accountability. Likewise, the Bible gives us no account of "infant dedication" for Christians. How do we know when the sins of children are accountable?

The Bible says that the covenant of baptism is for our children too (Acts 2:39), and this is why Christians have always baptised their children.

Here's the problem. If all are born in sin, then all need salvation. If salvation is just about rational thought and assent to the Gospel alone then there is no offer of salvation to the mentally infirm, the very young, or the demented. However, Christ's atonement is for all, and thus God's grace is given to all in some way or another (whether you call it prevenient grace or common grace or whatever), and because of that our children and the others mentioned do not die for sins they have not committed (if indeed this doctrine is correct). But, on the other hand, if we see that God's grace is already covering the sin nature of the infant, then surely that makes them worthy recipients of God's promise, which is given and seen in baptism. This then would make baptism a means of grace, which has always been the understanding of the church. Why then would we want to reject that promise in the way God has given us? It seems to me that the trend of rejecting baptism is because people are chasing after experiences, and this culture of ours has forgotten the communal nature of the church in favour of the individualistic ideal of the modern west. In other words, I think Wesley and all the other Methodist forefathers were right about this and I think the rejection of it comes from a different place.

"V. Sin, Original and Personal
5. We believe that sin came into the world through the disobedience of our first parents, and death by sin. We believe that sin is of two kinds: original sin or depravity, and actual or personal sin.
5.1. We believe that original sin, or depravity, is that corruption of the nature of all the offspring of Adam by reason of which everyone is very far gone from original righteousness or the pure state of our first parents at the time of their creation, is averse to God, is without spiritual life, and inclined to evil, and that continually. We further believe that original sin continues to exist with the new life of the regenerate, until the heart is fully cleansed by the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
5.2. We believe that original sin differs from actual sin in that it constitutes an inherited propensity to actual sin for which no one is accountable until its divinely provided remedy is neglected or rejected.
5.3. We believe that actual or personal sin is a voluntary violation of a known law of God by a morally responsible person. It is therefore not to be confused with involuntary and inescapable shortcomings, infirmities, faults, mistakes, failures, or other deviations from a standard of perfect conduct that are the residual effects of the Fall. However, such innocent effects do not include attitudes or responses contrary to the spirit of Christ, which may properly be called sins of the spirit. We believe that personal sin is primarily and essentially a violation of the law of love; and that in relation to Christ sin may be defined as unbelief.
(Original sin: Genesis 3; 6:5; Job 15:14; Psalm 51:5; Jeremiah 17:9-10; Mark 7:21-23; Romans 1:18-25; 5:12-14; 7:1-8:9; 1 Corinthians 3:1-4; Galatians 5:16-25; 1 John 1:7-8)
(Personal sin: Matthew 22:36-40 {with 1 John 3:4}; John 8:34-36; 16:8-9; Romans 3:23; 6:15-23; 8:18-24; 14:23; 1 John 1:9-2:4; 3:7-10) "

http://www.nazarene.org/welcome/we_believe.html

That right there explains the reason why children and infants do not need salvation to enter heaven. We are born into sin.. but there are two different kinds of sin. There is original sin which comes from being born.. what we are born into.. because of our first parents.. then there is Actual sin, which is the sin that we CAN control.. we cannot control orignal sin.. we have orignal sin because of what Adam and Eve did. This comes from the nazarene hand book and there are scriptures to back it up. You are right there is no specific age of accountability. I believe there is an age of accountability, but it is different for everyone! There is no certain age. An infant has not yet had a chance to commit "actual" sin.. they only have orignal sin, of which they are not accountable for because they have no control. A parent cannot decide for a child that they can be saved. That is something they have to find on their own.. once they are past "THEIR" age of accountability.. which only they know when that is.. and God knows.

"
VI. Atonement
6. We believe that Jesus Christ, by His sufferings, by the shedding of His own blood, and by His death on the Cross, made a full atonement for all human sin, and that this Atonement is the only ground of salvation, and that it is sufficient for every individual of Adam’s race. The Atonement is graciously efficacious for the salvation of the irresponsible and for the children in innocency but is efficacious for the salvation of those who reach the age of responsibility only when they repent and believe.
(Isaiah 53:5-6, 11; Mark 10:45; Luke 24:46-48; John 1:29; 3:14-17; Acts 4:10-12; Romans 3:21-26; 4:17-25; 5:6-21; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:14-21; Galatians 1:3-4; 3:13-14; Colossians 1:19-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:9; 9:11-14; 13:12; 1 Peter 1:18-21; 2:19-25; 1 John 2:1-2) "

"
XII. Baptism
16. We believe that Christian baptism, commanded by our Lord, is a sacrament signifying acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ, to be administered to believers and declarative of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and full purpose of obedience in holiness and righteousness.
Baptism being a symbol of the new covenant, young children may be baptized, upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of necessary Christian training.
Baptism may be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, according to the choice of the applicant.
(Matthew 3:1-7; 28:16-20; Acts 2:37-41; 8:35-39; 10:44-48; 16:29-34; 19:1-6; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:18-22) "

note.. "Baptism being a symbol of the new covenant, young children may be baptised, upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of the necessary Christian training."

As I said.. it is a promise the parents give to say t hat they will give their children the necessary training to be a Christian.. teach them about God.

 

[ContraMundum]

That right there explains the reason why children and infants do not need salvation to enter heaven. We are born into sin.. but there are two different kinds of sin. There is original sin which comes from being born.. what we are born into.. because of our first parents.. then there is Actual sin, which is the sin that we CAN control.. we cannot control orignal sin.. we have orignal sin because of what Adam and Eve did. This comes from the nazarene hand book and there are scriptures to back it up. You are right there is no specific age of accountability. I believe there is an age of accountability, but it is different for everyone! There is no certain age. An infant has not yet had a chance to commit "actual" sin.. they only have orignal sin, of which they are not accountable for because they have no control. A parent cannot decide for a child that they can be saved. That is something they have to find on their own.. once they are past "THEIR" age of accountability.. which only they know when that is.. and God knows.

The Articles of faith you cited are in agreement with my position, but one doesn't actually address paedo-baptism, and neither addresses the underlying doctrine of the means of grace per se.

You see, we can agree that children are not destined to Hell because of Adam's sin, but why is it so? The answer- because of God's grace- prevenient grace, through the atonement of Christ. Therefore, baptism acknowledges that grace already at work in them. The article I posted a link to was also written by a Nazarene professor, and I am merely agreeing with that article.

note.. "Baptism being a symbol of the new covenant, young children may be baptised, upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of the necessary Christian training."

As I said.. it is a promise the parents give to say t hat they will give their children the necessary training to be a Christian.. teach them about God.

But that is merely the only thing mentioned in the Article of faith, but that is not the sum of the doctrine. It's a snapshot of a bigger picture, so to speak.

For example, Nazarene textbooks, written by men like Purkiser, Dunning, Grider, the Taylors etc all say the same thing about the means of grace- that is, they are more than mere emblems or symbols of grace, but they actually seal the promise of grace. From another place on the same site: "Baptism, a sacramental "means of grace," seals one's intention to follow God (Acts 2:37-41, 8:35-39, 10:44-48)." http://www.nazarene.org/welcome/faq.html

I think a far better, and more thorough explanation of the Nazarene position is explained in this sermon article about the Article on Baptism from a Nazarene Church. It's very good and in step with Wesley. I would agree with it. http://www.capenazarene.org/sermons/articles/article12.asp

I commend that article to you whole heartedly as well as other articles found at Northwest Nazarene University's "Wesley Centre for Applied Theology" website. http://wesley.nnu.edu/

I am not in disagreement with you at all, just pushing the discussion a little deeper than it has been and as deep as it deserves.

 

[WesleyJohn]

.

 

[ContraMundum]

Probably you are far too kind, my friend.

Perhaps, but my own experience with the CoftN has been nothing short of excellent.

You can also find that same sermon article posted right here on CF: http://www.christianforums.com/t787893-nazarene-article-of-faith-12-baptism.html. I posted the entire set of sermons on CF back in the beginning days of Wesley's Parish.

They are great sermons, and a very positive, conservative portrayal of Wesleyan theology in my opinion. With so much novelty kicking around and Methodist doctrine in danger of being drowned out by bapti-costal and Calvinist doctrine I think it's about time Methodists, United, Free, Wesleyan or Nazarene started speaking out again.

Let me state, for the record, that as a Nazarene Pastor, I would not rebaptize an individual who received Christian baptism as an infant. I would utilize a "reaffirmation of baptismal vows" (or confirmation) ceremony instead.

Excellent! May your ministry be long!

Cheers!