Does baptism automatically make you a Christian?

[Tenten]

In ancient times, a person had to undergo a ton of learning about scripture, G-d, and Jesus before becoming a Christian. When they went to the water to be baptized, they knew exactly what it meant to be Christian and baptized.

Nowadays, evangelists call people to the altar to be "saved", some of which have little to no idea what it truly means to be saved or who G-d really is. People (like myself) end up being baptized with no real understanding of what that really is or what the words they are agreeing to mean.

Now, if someone is baptized with no real understanding of the scripture, does that invalidate their baptism? If they are "saved" (without actually being dunked in the water) with no real understanding of the scripture, does that invalidate it? And do you think Christian-seekers should be required to take classes before baptism or being "saved"?

 

[wayseer]

In ancient times, a person had to undergo a ton of learning about scripture, G-d, and Jesus before becoming a Christian.

That did? I wonder from where they got that 'learning'?

You statement is far too generalized. There were no 'Christians' in the early days. Apart from those who could read, and they were few in number, the only texts they had was the OT - if they were lucky.

When they went to the water to be baptized, they knew exactly what it meant to be Christian and baptized.

Again a generalization. Do you have any supporting reference? The only one I know of is the Didache and we are not too sure when or how this was used. Certainly it seems baptism formed part of the ritual of acceptance into the early community.

Nowadays, evangelists call people to the altar to be "saved", some of which have little to no idea what it truly means to be saved or who G-d really is. People (like myself) end up being baptized with no real understanding of what that really is or what the words they are agreeing to mean.

Baptism is not a legal contract - it is an act of faith.

Now, if someone is baptized with no real understanding of the scripture, does that invalidate their baptism? If they are "saved" (without actually being dunked in the water) with no real understanding of the scripture, does that invalidate it? And do you think Christian-seekers should be required to take classes before baptism or being "saved"?

Who among us can claim a full understanding?

While many will claim they know what designates a Christian I am far too circumspect to make such grandiose claims.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I didn't know that one had to study and have a firm knowledge before being baptized back in the day. I find that curious. I don't think God wants it to be complicated, faith is enough to rule all. Some people don't have the capacity to hold much knowledge, either. It's interesting and I admit not knowing much about the requirements back in the day.

 

[ebia]

In ancient times, a person had to undergo a ton of learning about scripture, G-d, and Jesus before becoming a Christian. When they went to the water to be baptized, they knew exactly what it meant to be Christian and baptized.

In some periods of history this has been true, but not always.

Nowadays, evangelists call people to the altar to be "saved", some of which have little to no idea what it truly means to be saved or who G-d really is. People (like myself) end up being baptized with no real understanding of what that really is or what the words they are agreeing to mean.

Now, if someone is baptized with no real understanding of the scripture, does that invalidate their baptism? If they are "saved" (without actually being dunked in the water) with no real understanding of the scripture, does that invalidate it? And do you think Christian-seekers should be required to take classes before baptism or being "saved"?

It's a good idea for adults being baptised to have some reasonable idea of what they are taking on and what the vows they are making mean.

But that said, baptised is baptised, and it is about God doing something - not about us doing something. Once one is baptised one has become a member of a family - the people of God. One can be an estranged member, one who has disowned the family even, but that's still distinct from not being a member of the family at all.

It also needs to be said that we are saved by the grace of God, not by passing a theology exam. Understanding is a good thing, but its a neverending lifetime of learning, not hurdle to be jumped.

 

[Tenten]

That did? I wonder from where they got that 'learning'?

You statement is far too generalized. There were no 'Christians' in the early days. Apart from those who could read, and they were few in number, the only texts they had was the OT - if they were lucky.

I just remember in class the teacher explained how before a physical Christian church was built in the Roman empire (the "churches" were in peoples houses) and before the first emperor (I forget which one... I think it was Constantine, but I could be wrong about him being the one that caused that) accepted Christianity causing a large influx of Christians into the church, there was a small enough number of Christians which allowed for a seeker to learn a great deal about Christianity and understand what it means before the scheduled baptism. He said that in the early church period, the Christians were Jews who simply believed the Messiah had already come, that not everyone had a bible or could read it (of course... they were poor), but he emphasized that there was actual learning taking place about the Christian religion over a long period of time before the baptism occurred and the person accepted the faith (whether the learning was done orally or through writing). The person knew something about the religion before baptism because they had been participating in it and actively sought out participation in the religion. Even when the religion was illegal (when Rome realized it was not simply a new Jewish sect, but an entirely new religion), they went to the hidden services.

I really wish I had the book used in class to type some quotes up here for you out of it, but I moved into my first house afterwards and the book was lost. I'm sorry, but I typed this from what I could remember the teacher saying (I have a better oral memory than a written one). The teacher had a doctorate in religious study, so I trust his word.

This struck me because nowadays people will walk down the aisle and be saved knowing next to nothing about Christianity, and putting forth little effort to learn about the faith before accepting it. But I don't want to get caught up on semantics here, or even whether or not what the teacher said was true about the early church, especially since I typed all that from memory and no longer have the book. What I'm emphasizing here is the lack of learning (on some people's part... not everyones) about the faith before acceptance. I am asking, if someone states they accept something, like at baptism, without completely understanding the meaning behind the words they are affirming, does that invalidate their affirmation.

 

[ebia]

I just remember in class the teacher explained how before a physical Christian church was built in the Roman empire (the "churches" were in peoples houses) and before the first emperor (I forget which one... I think it was Constantine, but I could be wrong about him being the one that caused that) accepted Christianity causing a large influx of Christians into the church, there was a small enough number of Christians which allowed for a seeker to learn a great deal about Christianity and understand what it means before the scheduled baptism. He said that in the early church period, the Christians were Jews who simply believed the Messiah had already come, that not everyone had a bible or could read it (of course... they were poor), but he emphasized that there was actual learning taking place about the Christian religion over a long period of time before the baptism occurred and the person accepted the faith (whether the learning was done orally or through writing). The person knew something about the religion before baptism because they had been participating in it and actively sought out participation in the religion. Even when the religion was illegal (when Rome realized it was not simply a new Jewish sect, but an entirely new religion), they went to the hidden services.

I really wish I had the book used in class to type some quotes up here for you out of it, but I moved into my first house afterwards and the book was lost. I'm sorry, but I typed this from what I could remember the teacher saying (I have a better oral memory than a written one). The teacher had a doctorate in religious study, so I trust his word.

This struck me because nowadays people will walk down the aisle and be saved knowing next to nothing about Christianity, and putting forth little effort to learn about the faith before accepting it. But I don't want to get caught up on semantics here, or even whether or not what the teacher said was true about the early church, especially since I typed all that from memory and no longer have the book. What I'm emphasizing here is the lack of learning (on some people's part... not everyones) about the faith before acceptance. I am asking, if someone states they accept something, like at baptism, without completely understanding the meaning behind the words they are affirming, does that invalidate their affirmation.

We need to be a little bit careful on a couple of counts:
1. nobody has complete understanding, and nobody has zero understanding - we are each at different points along a scale (or more accurately different points in a multi-dimensional space). Some level of teaching before baptism is desirable for adults, but its impossible to draw a line anywhere, and of course there is infant baptism.
2. baptism is something God does - a baptism is a valid baptism, however inadequate our participation in it is. Get baptised and you have joined the family of God's people, and there is no way of that being invalid, of undoing it, or of redoing it. You can be estranged from your family but you can't leave it; you can need reconcilling with it but it's meaningless to rejoin it. But baptism is the start of the journey, not the end of it, whether that baptism comes at the end of a three year catechesis (as in the 2nd century church) or after an hour or two's conversation (as in the Acts of the Apostles), or an infant who can't articulate her own name yet, let alone explain the meaning of "Justification by Faith".

Incidentally, that same church that had very long periods of training before baptism would not let anyone not yet baptised, whether catechuminate or interested visitor, stay while the congregation celebrated communion. Everyone except the baptised was kicked out of the building after the first part of the service.

 

[wayseer]

I am asking, if someone states they accept something, like at baptism, without completely understanding the meaning behind the words they are affirming, does that invalidate their affirmation.

I take your several points but I think we can also do a bit of fantasizing and image a time way back then when things were so much more perfect. Such may not necessarily be the case. And I was not necessarily thinking of the more clumsy aspects of institutionalized control which Ebia has correctly bought to our attention.

My point, how would we know when anyone has a complete understanding of anything to do with God? Gee, when I got baptized, as an adult, I knew next to nothing - it just felt like the right thing to do at the time.

 

[ittarter]

Nowadays, evangelists call people to the altar to be "saved", some of which have little to no idea what it truly means to be saved or who G-d really is. People (like myself) end up being baptized with no real understanding of what that really is or what the words they are agreeing to mean.

The bigger problem isn't understanding. After all, most people (myself included) don't ever "understand" Christianity enough to really know what they are saying. Understanding comes through faith, St. Anselm said.

I'd say the bigger problem with the altar call is it's an emotionally-led commitment, just like going to the grocery store and buying stuff on the Bargain Table or being attracted to the 50% Sale! signs. People need to take it as a life-decision -- as serious as marriage or having a child or moving to a new country -- rather than the result of a manipulated mood-swing.

Now, if someone is baptized with no real understanding of the scripture, does that invalidate their baptism? If they are "saved" (without actually being dunked in the water) with no real understanding of the scripture, does that invalidate it? And do you think Christian-seekers should be required to take classes before baptism or being "saved"?

This depends on how you understand the meaning of baptism, of being a Christian, of being part of the church. Without that framework, there isn't really an intelligible answer to your question. However, whatever your theological presuppositions, I don't think that requiring pre-baptismal classes is going to be the answer. Maybe some meetings with the minister or priest. Maybe a certain "wait time" to make sure the decision is genuine (like an engagement period?). A lot of the more established wings of the church (E. Orthodoxy comes to mind) already have systems in place for these very reasons.