The importance of water baptism within Wesleyan theology

[renniks]

By the way renniks, this is a forum for Wesleyan Christians. So that's the viewpoint you should expect to get here.

I was a Wesleyan for many years.
I'm at least somewhat familiar with Wesley's theology. Honestly it's kinda sketchy in some areas, by which I mean it doesn't really cover everything. I have no problem going to a Methodist church and reciting the Nicene Creed, but the baby baptism never made sense to me. Of course we didn't have that in the wesleyan church anyway. Baptism wasn't really emphasized much in general either.
So it's kinda strange seeing as the Methodist and wesleyan and wesleyan Methodists all come from the same background.

 

[Methodized]

I was a Wesleyan for many years.
I'm at least somewhat familiar with Wesley's theology. Honestly it's kinda sketchy in some areas, by which I mean it doesn't really cover everything. I have no problem going to a Methodist church and reciting the Nicene Creed, but the baby baptism never made sense to me. Of course we didn't have that in the wesleyan church anyway. Baptism wasn't really emphasized much in general either.
So it's kinda strange seeing as the Methodist and wesleyan and wesleyan Methodists all come from the same background.

Wesley's breaking with the Anglican Church in the US wasn't about deep theological differences. It was more about what he saw as a lack of spirituality in Anglicanism. And a need to provide clergy for the American Church after the Revolutionary War. The Articles of Religion are the same articles as those in the Anglican Church minus some material that Wesley felt was too Calvinist.

Wesley was strongly sacramental and insisted on retaining infant baptism. For Wesley infant baptism is a sign of God's Prevenient Grace. Most all churches that perform infant baptism see baptism as an act of God, not an act of the individual. So, it is not necessary that the individual make some kind of decision or understand baptism at the time of their baptism. Baptism is simply a grace gift from God and none of us ever fully understand God's grace.

 

[The Liturgist]

Wesley's breaking with the Anglican Church in the US wasn't about deep theological differences. It was more about what he saw as a lack of spirituality in Anglicanism. And a need to provide clergy for the American Church after the Revolutionary War. The Articles of Religion are the same articles as those in the Anglican Church minus some material that Wesley felt was too Calvinist.

Wesley was strongly sacramental and insisted on retaining infant baptism. For Wesley infant baptism is a sign of God's Prevenient Grace. Most all churches that perform infant baptism see baptism as an act of God, not an act of the individual. So, it is not necessary that the individual make some kind of decision or understand baptism at the time of their baptism. Baptism is simply a grace gift from God and none of us ever fully understand God's grace.

I have really loved and felt greatly blessed by the sacramental theology in evidence in this thread. Indeed I received water baptism in my youth in the UMC, and often received the Eucharist there (I also had strong connections with the LCMS and later the Episcopal Church).

I am not presently a member of the UMC but was as mentioned previously baptized therein, and I consider myself a Wesleyan theologian to the point that I venerate John Wesley in the liturgical calendar of the ministry of which I am Presbyter along with other Protestants such as Soren Kierkegaard and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but John Wesley, Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague we commemorate to the greatest extent from a theological perspective. Indeed I regret that in my youth, I was not exposed to a greater extent within the UMC to Wesley’s strong sacramental theology or his belief in entire sanctification, and I really wish we had worshipped using his Sunday Service Book and fasted and recited the Litany on Wednesday and Friday after the fashion of the early church.

I was under the impression that Wesley regretted the necessity of the separation of the Methodist Episcopal Church from the Anglicans, and had it not been for the refusal of the Church of England to ordain clergy for either the Methodists or Anglicans in North America he would not have separated the two. I also was under the impression that when he ordained Superintendent Coke and compiled the Sunday Service Book for him to use in 1784, he was either unaware of or not optimistic of the efforts of the Anglicans; it took Bishop Seabury much longer to be ordained, and he was ordained by the non-juring Scottish Episcopalians, which is why the Anglicans became the Protestant Episcopal Church. I am not sure if it would have even been legal for John Wesley to work with the Scottish Episcopalians under the praemunire act, which Wesley had already more likely than not secretly violated when he was (allegedly) ordained a bishop by the Greek Orthodox Erasmus of Arcadia (an incident he refused to confirm or deny). So there would have been some excessive and unwarranted personal risk for Wesley, and it came down to the best way for him to serve his North American connexion.

Speaking of which, I have often felt Wesley, as a lifelong curate in the Church of England, would have regretted the separation of the British Methodists from the Church of England; I feel he would rather they had remained in, in order to improve the spiritual life of the C of E; it was not until the ascendancy of the Anglo Catholics in the late 19th and early 20th century and the influence of Anglican clergy such as Rev. Percy Dearmer that John Wesley’s desire for weekly Holy Communion became normal in the Church of England.

 

[Methodized]

I have really loved and felt greatly blessed by the sacramental theology in evidence in this thread. Indeed I received water baptism in my youth in the UMC, and often received the Eucharist there (I also had strong connections with the LCMS and later the Episcopal Church).

I am not presently a member of the UMC but was as mentioned previously baptized therein, and I consider myself a Wesleyan theologian to the point that I venerate John Wesley in the liturgical calendar of the ministry of which I am Presbyter along with other Protestants such as Soren Kierkegaard and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but John Wesley, Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague we commemorate to the greatest extent from a theological perspective. Indeed I regret that in my youth, I was not exposed to a greater extent within the UMC to Wesley’s strong sacramental theology or his belief in entire sanctification, and I really wish we had worshipped using his Sunday Service Book and fasted and recited the Litany on Wednesday and Friday after the fashion of the early church.

I was under the impression that Wesley regretted the necessity of the separation of the Methodist Episcopal Church from the Anglicans, and had it not been for the refusal of the Church of England to ordain clergy for either the Methodists or Anglicans in North America he would not have separated the two. I also was under the impression that when he ordained Superintendent Coke and compiled the Sunday Service Book for him to use in 1784, he was either unaware of or not optimistic of the efforts of the Anglicans; it took Bishop Seabury much longer to be ordained, and he was ordained by the non-juring Scottish Episcopalians, which is why the Anglicans became the Protestant Episcopal Church. I am not sure if it would have even been legal for John Wesley to work with the Scottish Episcopalians under the praemunire act, which Wesley had already more likely than not secretly violated when he was (allegedly) ordained a bishop by the Greek Orthodox Erasmus of Arcadia (an incident he refused to confirm or deny). So there would have been some excessive and unwarranted personal risk for Wesley, and it came down to the best way for him to serve his North American connexion.

Speaking of which, I have often felt Wesley, as a lifelong curate in the Church of England, would have regretted the separation of the British Methodists from the Church of England; I feel he would rather they had remained in, in order to improve the spiritual life of the C of E; it was not until the ascendancy of the Anglo Catholics in the late 19th and early 20th century and the influence of Anglican clergy such as Rev. Percy Dearmer that John Wesley’s desire for weekly Holy Communion became normal in the Church of England.

I think you've done a good job of summarizing the issues around the creation of the Methodist Church as a separate Church. Looking back historically, both Methodists and what is now the Episcopal Church lost an opportunity for Christian unity at that time that could have benefited both. The revivalistic fervor of Methodists and the sacramentalism of the Episcopal Church could have struck a better balance between sacrament and praxis.

I gather in England there have been on going talks about the British Methodist Church (which is quite small) either having a full communion arrangement or merging back into the Church of England.

I see very little in the doctrine of the Episcopal Church that I would argue with. I'm not a fan of the semi-congregational model they have adopted for the hiring of clergy. I prefer episcopal appointment. But, I love how well the Episcopal Church has maintain strict adherence to the liturgy for the sacraments. Sometimes Methodists are a bit too slipshod (depending on the pastor) for my taste.

Tim

 

[The Liturgist]

I gather in England there have been on going talks about the British Methodist Church (which is quite small) either having a full communion arrangement or merging back into the Church of England.

They did establish a covenant with the Church of England in 2003 after having been rebuffed 30 years earlier.

As small as the British Methodists have become (which is quite tragic when one considers that at one time, they were larger than Anglicanism in Wales, something which led to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in Wales), they are still I believe the second largest Protestant denomination in England after the C of E and ahead of the United Reformed Church; in the UK overall only the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland are larger among Protestant denominations, and to put this all into greater perspective, the British Methodists number 180,000 or so, the semi-established Church of Scotland a surprisingly low 375,000, and the Irish Presbyterians in the 200,000s. The Church of England officially has 30 million members but realistically in terms of active members is probably similar in size to the UMC or the Southern Baptist Convention; in contrast the other three Anglican provinces total less than 100,000 members, but are not established, and in Scotland and Ireland compete with much more prominent denominations.

I think the diversity of the Church of England in terms of including everyone from ultra traditional Prayer Book Society and Anglo Catholic members, to more broad church / Libera Catholic members, to Evangelicals (probably the most important center of the Evangelical movement in England is a C of E parish, Holy Trinity Brompton, with which Archbishop Justin Welby had some connection), plus the Royal Connection, makes it difficult for the “dissenting Protestants” to compete with the Established Church, and Roman Catholicism has also become increasingly popular in the UK, but meanwhile Christianity has been in decline across the country, moreso in Wales and Scotland than England; the church membership in Northern Ireland is also lower than what you might expect.

 

[The Liturgist]

I gather in England there have been on going talks about the British Methodist Church (which is quite small) either having a full communion arrangement or merging back into the Church of England.

They did establish a covenant with the Church of England in 2003 after having been rebuffed 30 years earlier.

As small as the British Methodists have become (which is quite tragic when one considers that at one time, they were larger than Anglicanism in Wales, something which led to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in Wales), they are still I believe the second largest Protestant denomination in England after the C of E and ahead of the United Reformed Church; in the UK overall only the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland are larger among Protestant denominations, and to put this all into greater perspective, the British Methodists number 180,000 or so, the semi-established Church of Scotland a surprisingly low 375,000, and the Irish Presbyterians in the 200,000s. The Church of England officially has 30 million members but realistically in terms of active members is probably similar in size to the UMC or the Southern Baptist Convention; in contrast the other three Anglican provinces total less than 100,000 members, but are not established, and in Scotland and Ireland compete with much more prominent denominations.

I think the diversity of the Church of England in terms of including everyone from ultra traditional Prayer Book Society and Anglo Catholic members, to more broad church / Libera Catholic members, to Evangelicals (probably the most important center of the Evangelical movement in England is a C of E parish, Holy Trinity Brompton, with which Archbishop Justin Welby had some connection), plus the Royal Connection, makes it difficult for the “dissenting Protestants” to compete with the Established Church, and Roman Catholicism has also become increasingly popular in the UK, but meanwhile Christianity has been in decline across the country, moreso in Wales and Scotland than England; the church membership in Northern Ireland is also lower than what you might expect.

 

[Methodized]

They did establish a covenant with the Church of England in 2003 after having been rebuffed 30 years earlier.

As small as the British Methodists have become (which is quite tragic when one considers that at one time, they were larger than Anglicanism in Wales, something which led to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in Wales), they are still I believe the second largest Protestant denomination in England after the C of E and ahead of the United Reformed Church; in the UK overall only the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland are larger among Protestant denominations, and to put this all into greater perspective, the British Methodists number 180,000 or so, the semi-established Church of Scotland a surprisingly low 375,000, and the Irish Presbyterians in the 200,000s. The Church of England officially has 30 million members but realistically in terms of active members is probably similar in size to the UMC or the Southern Baptist Convention; in contrast the other three Anglican provinces total less than 100,000 members, but are not established, and in Scotland and Ireland compete with much more prominent denominations.

I think the diversity of the Church of England in terms of including everyone from ultra traditional Prayer Book Society and Anglo Catholic members, to more broad church / Libera Catholic members, to Evangelicals (probably the most important center of the Evangelical movement in England is a C of E parish, Holy Trinity Brompton, with which Archbishop Justin Welby had some connection), plus the Royal Connection, makes it difficult for the “dissenting Protestants” to compete with the Established Church, and Roman Catholicism has also become increasingly popular in the UK, but meanwhile Christianity has been in decline across the country, moreso in Wales and Scotland than England; the church membership in Northern Ireland is also lower than what you might expect.

It seems to me that in all or most Western countries institutional Christianity is in decline. A lot of people are fed up with one form or another of the institutional church. I would love to see a way to collects statistics that would show how many Christians are out there who are just no longer attending church or have dropped their official affiliation but still consider themselves Christian.

 

[The Liturgist]

It seems to me that in all or most Western countries institutional Christianity is in decline. A lot of people are fed up with one form or another of the institutional church. I would love to see a way to collects statistics that would show how many Christians are out there who are just no longer attending church or have dropped their official affiliation but still consider themselves Christian.

Indeed, and also why they are unchurched. I have encountered unchurched people here on CF who argued with me church membership is unnecessary if you can believe it.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Indeed, and also why they are unchurched. I have encountered unchurched people here on CF who argued with me church membership is unnecessary if you can believe it.

I'd love to have that discussion at some point but understand CF rules prohibit disagreements on theological discussion if one is not part of a specific faith group. I guess I could be considered part of the group here as I do attend a Wesleyan church, but who knows.

I'd like to get back to Baptism though if I may. But before I do I want to preface this by stating what follows is MY UNDERSTANDING of scriptures. It may come across as me preaching or being argumentative but it is not meant that way. I feel to accurately explain myself and my view I need to expound of it a bit. What follows may ruffle some feathers, I certainly hope not. Again I'm not trying to argue, if you disagree with me that is fine, and again it's not even about that. Merely explaining my understanding so we can have a better basis for discussion. If I'm off may we be able to discuss it in a manner that is wholesome and civil, please!

I appreciate the responses and have kept silent for a while to let the discussion play out some. I can honestly say I'm no believer that babies should be baptized if only because to me reading the scriptures, baptism is something a person does with repentance. An argument can be made that Cornelius could have had some children baptized but I don't think scriptures explicitly state he had children of infant age. It just says he was a centurion and his whole household feared God. Again I'm not saying that he didn't have children. I'm merely pointing out that it only states his household. That could have been him, a spouse, grown children, and/or servants. A centurion would no doubt have children of an older age as they would be experienced Soldiers, experience = age. Now we know he had servants because he sent servants to fetch Simon. Outside of that, we know Cornelius had invited over relatives and close friends. So we know, from scripture people present were servants, friends, relatives, and some Soldiers. Anything other is conjecture and to me not the best basis for forming a doctrine. Again, not trying to argue, just explaining my position on it.

Now as far as baptism being a sacrament or ordinance. I view it as more than an ordinance. Maybe even more than a sacrament, but it's certainly closer to a sacrament than an ordinance to me. From scripture Jesus says you MUST be born of WATER and the Spirit to see the kingdom of God, or born again. Must be. As others have pointed out, Paul says in Romans 6 that we die to our old self in baptism. He writes in Ephesians that we (as a church) are cleansed by the water. He writes in Colossians that baptism is a spiritual circumcision. That's where this gets interesting. We know that Old Testament scriptures were foreshadows of the New Testament. In the Old Testament, you had to be circumcised in order to be a part of God's covenant. But that was a physical process, one that if I explained here I'd be banned from CF so I'll leave it at that. But you had to be. Even at the time of Acts Jewish Christians were trying to convince Gentiles to be circumcised physically before they could join the covenant. I think they were close, but just not physical circumcision. In Deuteronomy 10 Moses tells the people.of Israel to circumcise their hearts so they may fear God and follow him. That is the cornerstone of scripture for this deal to me. So circumcision is necessary to be in covenant, but it's a circumcision of the heart. Which is done when a person is baptized.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Colossians 2:11‭-‬12 ESV

The other aspect of baptism I think about is that we, as believers are called priests of God. Peter (1 Peter 2:5, 9), John (Rev 1:6) and the author of Hebrews writes about this. Before priests were allowed to minister or even enter the Tabernacle or Temple to offer sacrifices they had to be washed with water (Exodus 40:20). So I think along the same lines of foreshadowing, before we can offer sacrifices that are acceptable to God (Rom 12:1, Heb 10:20-22, Heb 13:15-16) we must be washed with water.

So is it necessary for salvation? I would say like this. The thief on the cross clearly wasn't baptized so the immediate and logical answer would be no, because if God didn't require it of him he won't require it of anyone else. I'd say that may be partially true, but scriptures make it clear that baptism is commanded. If we begin our journey of faith with disobedience we show our heart is still not right with God, Jesus said why do you call me Lord and do not do the things I say? (Matt 7:21, Luke 6:46). The thief clearly could not come down off the cross to be baptized, not to mention Jesus had still not died yet, so technically they were still under the Old Covenant at the moment of that conversation. The New Covenant began with the shedding of His blood and resurrection.

Clearly, baptism is a public declaration of faith. There are stories about how Romans would stand at baptisms and take down names of those being baptized so the state could confiscate their possessions and belongings. So back then, it was more than just a welcome to the church thing. It had real world consequences and Jesus told his believers that they should not be ashamed of him publicly.

Also as clear as the gospel was preached with baptism in mind. Peter said repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Phillip told the Eunuch about Jesus and the first thing the Eunuch wants to do is get baptized, so clearly what Philip told him had something to do with baptism. Paul was baptized and baptized the disciples of John in Acts 19 after telling them about Jesus. I just don't see baptism as being anything less than a necessary and vital step to becoming of Christ (or a Christian).

The last aspect of this that gets mentioned is God's grace. Ephesians 2:8-9, we are saved by grace through faith. People think I speak of a works based gospel for salvation which is just not true. We are saved by God's grace, yes. But faith is the vehicle that delivers grace to us. Without faith, there is no grace. And faith in the Bible without some act to demonstrate it is absolutely useless and not valid (Hebrews 11; James 2:14-26, 1 John 3:18) and Baptism in itself, if it is done without faith will not save. Jesus says in Mark 16, those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but those who do not believe will be condemned. Belief is shown and exercised in baptism. But without belief, not even baptism will save. But also, belief without a demonstration of said belief is also equally useless. Jesus prescribes to us how we demonstrate saving faith, baptism in water.

 

[Methodized]

I'd love to have that discussion at some point but understand CF rules prohibit disagreements on theological discussion if one is not part of a specific faith group. I guess I could be considered part of the group here as I do attend a Wesleyan church, but who knows.

I'd like to get back to Baptism though if I may. But before I do I want to preface this by stating what follows is MY UNDERSTANDING of scriptures. It may come across as me preaching or being argumentative but it is not meant that way. I feel to accurately explain myself and my view I need to expound of it a bit. What follows may ruffle some feathers, I certainly hope not. Again I'm not trying to argue, if you disagree with me that is fine, and again it's not even about that. Merely explaining my understanding so we can have a better basis for discussion. If I'm off may we be able to discuss it in a manner that is wholesome and civil, please!

I appreciate the responses and have kept silent for a while to let the discussion play out some. I can honestly say I'm no believer that babies should be baptized if only because to me reading the scriptures, baptism is something a person does with repentance. An argument can be made that Cornelius could have had some children baptized but I don't think scriptures explicitly state he had children of infant age. It just says he was a centurion and his whole household feared God. Again I'm not saying that he didn't have children. I'm merely pointing out that it only states his household. That could have been him, a spouse, grown children, and/or servants. A centurion would no doubt have children of an older age as they would be experienced Soldiers, experience = age. Now we know he had servants because he sent servants to fetch Simon. Outside of that, we know Cornelius had invited over relatives and close friends. So we know, from scripture people present were servants, friends, relatives, and some Soldiers. Anything other is conjecture and to me not the best basis for forming a doctrine. Again, not trying to argue, just explaining my position on it.

Now as far as baptism being a sacrament or ordinance. I view it as more than an ordinance. Maybe even more than a sacrament, but it's certainly closer to a sacrament than an ordinance to me. From scripture Jesus says you MUST be born of WATER and the Spirit to see the kingdom of God, or born again. Must be. As others have pointed out, Paul says in Romans 6 that we die to our old self in baptism. He writes in Ephesians that we (as a church) are cleansed by the water. He writes in Colossians that baptism is a spiritual circumcision. That's where this gets interesting. We know that Old Testament scriptures were foreshadows of the New Testament. In the Old Testament, you had to be circumcised in order to be a part of God's covenant. But that was a physical process, one that if I explained here I'd be banned from CF so I'll leave it at that. But you had to be. Even at the time of Acts Jewish Christians were trying to convince Gentiles to be circumcised physically before they could join the covenant. I think they were close, but just not physical circumcision. In Deuteronomy 10 Moses tells the people.of Israel to circumcise their hearts so they may fear God and follow him. That is the cornerstone of scripture for this deal to me. So circumcision is necessary to be in covenant, but it's a circumcision of the heart. Which is done when a person is baptized.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Colossians 2:11‭-‬12 ESV

The other aspect of baptism I think about is that we, as believers are called priests of God. Peter (1 Peter 2:5, 9), John (Rev 1:6) and the author of Hebrews writes about this. Before priests were allowed to minister or even enter the Tabernacle or Temple to offer sacrifices they had to be washed with water (Exodus 40:20). So I think along the same lines of foreshadowing, before we can offer sacrifices that are acceptable to God (Rom 12:1, Heb 10:20-22, Heb 13:15-16) we must be washed with water.

So is it necessary for salvation? I would say like this. The thief on the cross clearly wasn't baptized so the immediate and logical answer would be no, because if God didn't require it of him he won't require it of anyone else. I'd say that may be partially true, but scriptures make it clear that baptism is commanded. If we begin our journey of faith with disobedience we show our heart is still not right with God, Jesus said why do you call me Lord and do not do the things I say? (Matt 7:21, Luke 6:46). The thief clearly could not come down off the cross to be baptized, not to mention Jesus had still not died yet, so technically they were still under the Old Covenant at the moment of that conversation. The New Covenant began with the shedding of His blood and resurrection.

Clearly, baptism is a public declaration of faith. There are stories about how Romans would stand at baptisms and take down names of those being baptized so the state could confiscate their possessions and belongings. So back then, it was more than just a welcome to the church thing. It had real world consequences and Jesus told his believers that they should not be ashamed of him publicly.

Also as clear as the gospel was preached with baptism in mind. Peter said repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Phillip told the Eunuch about Jesus and the first thing the Eunuch wants to do is get baptized, so clearly what Philip told him had something to do with baptism. Paul was baptized and baptized the disciples of John in Acts 19 after telling them about Jesus. I just don't see baptism as being anything less than a necessary and vital step to becoming of Christ (or a Christian).

The last aspect of this that gets mentioned is God's grace. Ephesians 2:8-9, we are saved by grace through faith. People think I speak of a works based gospel for salvation which is just not true. We are saved by God's grace, yes. But faith is the vehicle that delivers grace to us. Without faith, there is no grace. And faith in the Bible without some act to demonstrate it is absolutely useless and not valid (Hebrews 11; James 2:14-26, 1 John 3:18) and Baptism in itself, if it is done without faith will not save. Jesus says in Mark 16, those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but those who do not believe will be condemned. Belief is shown and exercised in baptism. But without belief, not even baptism will save. But also, belief without a demonstration of said belief is also equally useless. Jesus prescribes to us how we demonstrate saving faith, baptism in water.

Just something for you to think about. If you consider baptism a sacrament or more than it can't be a personal decision you or I make to be baptized. By definition a sacrament is a gift of grace from God. It is unmerited favor from God. So it can't be earned.

That is why Wesley maintained infant baptism. If baptism is about grace then grace can precede repentance, as it is unmerited. Methodists call this, from Wesley, "prevenient grace." Prevenient grace is at the heart of John Wesley's theology. Wesley believed that our free choice to follow God was only free because God himself gave us the ability to choose. So even our own free choice is a gift from God.

I understand the value of adult baptism, as it more directly connects the timing of repentance to baptism, but when baptism is required to be tied to repentance it becomes a human work and not a sacrament.

BTW, this is the same reason that United Methodist practice an open table for communion. Wesley believed someone could meet Jesus for the very first time at the table.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'd love to have that discussion at some point but understand CF rules prohibit disagreements on theological discussion if one is not part of a specific faith group. I guess I could be considered part of the group here as I do attend a Wesleyan church, but who knows.

I'd like to get back to Baptism though if I may. But before I do I want to preface this by stating what follows is MY UNDERSTANDING of scriptures. It may come across as me preaching or being argumentative but it is not meant that way. I feel to accurately explain myself and my view I need to expound of it a bit. What follows may ruffle some feathers, I certainly hope not. Again I'm not trying to argue, if you disagree with me that is fine, and again it's not even about that. Merely explaining my understanding so we can have a better basis for discussion. If I'm off may we be able to discuss it in a manner that is wholesome and civil, please!

I appreciate the responses and have kept silent for a while to let the discussion play out some. I can honestly say I'm no believer that babies should be baptized if only because to me reading the scriptures, baptism is something a person does with repentance. An argument can be made that Cornelius could have had some children baptized but I don't think scriptures explicitly state he had children of infant age. It just says he was a centurion and his whole household feared God. Again I'm not saying that he didn't have children. I'm merely pointing out that it only states his household. That could have been him, a spouse, grown children, and/or servants. A centurion would no doubt have children of an older age as they would be experienced Soldiers, experience = age. Now we know he had servants because he sent servants to fetch Simon. Outside of that, we know Cornelius had invited over relatives and close friends. So we know, from scripture people present were servants, friends, relatives, and some Soldiers. Anything other is conjecture and to me not the best basis for forming a doctrine. Again, not trying to argue, just explaining my position on it.

Now as far as baptism being a sacrament or ordinance. I view it as more than an ordinance. Maybe even more than a sacrament, but it's certainly closer to a sacrament than an ordinance to me. From scripture Jesus says you MUST be born of WATER and the Spirit to see the kingdom of God, or born again. Must be. As others have pointed out, Paul says in Romans 6 that we die to our old self in baptism. He writes in Ephesians that we (as a church) are cleansed by the water. He writes in Colossians that baptism is a spiritual circumcision. That's where this gets interesting. We know that Old Testament scriptures were foreshadows of the New Testament. In the Old Testament, you had to be circumcised in order to be a part of God's covenant. But that was a physical process, one that if I explained here I'd be banned from CF so I'll leave it at that. But you had to be. Even at the time of Acts Jewish Christians were trying to convince Gentiles to be circumcised physically before they could join the covenant. I think they were close, but just not physical circumcision. In Deuteronomy 10 Moses tells the people.of Israel to circumcise their hearts so they may fear God and follow him. That is the cornerstone of scripture for this deal to me. So circumcision is necessary to be in covenant, but it's a circumcision of the heart. Which is done when a person is baptized.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Colossians 2:11‭-‬12 ESV

The other aspect of baptism I think about is that we, as believers are called priests of God. Peter (1 Peter 2:5, 9), John (Rev 1:6) and the author of Hebrews writes about this. Before priests were allowed to minister or even enter the Tabernacle or Temple to offer sacrifices they had to be washed with water (Exodus 40:20). So I think along the same lines of foreshadowing, before we can offer sacrifices that are acceptable to God (Rom 12:1, Heb 10:20-22, Heb 13:15-16) we must be washed with water.

So is it necessary for salvation? I would say like this. The thief on the cross clearly wasn't baptized so the immediate and logical answer would be no, because if God didn't require it of him he won't require it of anyone else. I'd say that may be partially true, but scriptures make it clear that baptism is commanded. If we begin our journey of faith with disobedience we show our heart is still not right with God, Jesus said why do you call me Lord and do not do the things I say? (Matt 7:21, Luke 6:46). The thief clearly could not come down off the cross to be baptized, not to mention Jesus had still not died yet, so technically they were still under the Old Covenant at the moment of that conversation. The New Covenant began with the shedding of His blood and resurrection.

Clearly, baptism is a public declaration of faith. There are stories about how Romans would stand at baptisms and take down names of those being baptized so the state could confiscate their possessions and belongings. So back then, it was more than just a welcome to the church thing. It had real world consequences and Jesus told his believers that they should not be ashamed of him publicly.

Also as clear as the gospel was preached with baptism in mind. Peter said repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Phillip told the Eunuch about Jesus and the first thing the Eunuch wants to do is get baptized, so clearly what Philip told him had something to do with baptism. Paul was baptized and baptized the disciples of John in Acts 19 after telling them about Jesus. I just don't see baptism as being anything less than a necessary and vital step to becoming of Christ (or a Christian).

The last aspect of this that gets mentioned is God's grace. Ephesians 2:8-9, we are saved by grace through faith. People think I speak of a works based gospel for salvation which is just not true. We are saved by God's grace, yes. But faith is the vehicle that delivers grace to us. Without faith, there is no grace. And faith in the Bible without some act to demonstrate it is absolutely useless and not valid (Hebrews 11; James 2:14-26, 1 John 3:18) and Baptism in itself, if it is done without faith will not save. Jesus says in Mark 16, those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but those who do not believe will be condemned. Belief is shown and exercised in baptism. But without belief, not even baptism will save. But also, belief without a demonstration of said belief is also equally useless. Jesus prescribes to us how we demonstrate saving faith, baptism in water.

Where you should talk about this is without fear of being off topic is Denomination Specific Theology.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Just something for you to think about. If you consider baptism a sacrament or more than it can't be a personal decision you or I make to be baptized. By definition a sacrament is a gift of grace from God. It is unmerited favor from God. So it can't be earned.

That is why Wesley maintained infant baptism. If baptism is about grace then grace can precede repentance, as it is unmerited. Methodists call this, from Wesley, "prevenient grace." Prevenient grace is at the heart of John Wesley's theology. Wesley believed that our free choice to follow God was only free because God himself gave us the ability to choose. So even our own free choice is a gift from God.

I understand the value of adult baptism, as it more directly connects the timing of repentance to baptism, but when baptism is required to be tied to repentance it becomes a human work and not a sacrament.

BTW, this is the same reason that United Methodist practice an open table for communion. Wesley believed someone could meet Jesus for the very first time at the table.

Interesting and thank you for your kind response!

If I'm understanding your view correctly you are saying that if a person makes baptism necessary for forgiveness is when it becomes a work?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Where you should talk about this is without fear of being off topic is Denomination Specific Theology.

I'm not entirely sure what denomination follows such theology. Again, not posting it to delve into debate. Just wanted to explain where I'm coming from so as to help others understand my question I guess. Thank you

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm not entirely sure what denomination follows such theology. Again, not posting it to delve into debate. Just wanted to explain where I'm coming from so as to help others understand my question I guess. Thank you

You might in that case have the best chance of your question being answered and of finding like minded believers in General Theology. I do know of some denominations that do follow your theology more or less and I am pretty sure some are Wesleyan; I do know that Wesley when he edited the BCP for use by the Methodists in North America he modified the Baptismal service to remove references to baptismal regeneration, if that helps.

 

[The Liturgist]

BTW, this is the same reason that United Methodist practice an open table for communion. Wesley believed someone could meet Jesus for the very first time at the table.

Christ is risen!

Do you have a source from that from a mid 20th century Methodist Episcopal Book of Discipline?

The reason I ask for such an obscure source is as follows: In my youth I was taught that Wesley’s view assumed they had been baptized, which in England was a relatively safe assumption as baptists were still an extreme fringe movement, and that meeting Christ in the Eucharist meant that faith began at that point, not unlike Wesley’s Aldersgate experience, and I was taught that baptism was a prerequisite to the Eucharist.

That said its highly possible the Methodist church I went to was not reflective of what we might call Wesleyan Orthodoxy but was like the Methobaptists of today (those Methodist ministers who strongly promote credobaptism and attempt to discourage paedobaptism by putting, in the case of one UMC parish, artificial impediments, the parish in question celebrating it only four times a year and on their website stating that they preferred to celebrate Believer’s Baptism).

And if you are right, and I suspect you are, this explains where the Stone/Campbell movement, which strikes me as having a Methodist aroma, albeit of the George Whitefield/Countess of Huntingdon variety as they are or rather were theoretically Calvinist, got the idea.

This also gives rise to another question: what ever happened to the Calvinist Methodists?

 

[Methodized]

Christ is risen!

Do you have a source from that from a mid 20th century Methodist Episcopal Book of Discipline?

The reason I ask for such an obscure source is as follows: In my youth I was taught that Wesley’s view assumed they had been baptized, which in England was a relatively safe assumption as baptists were still an extreme fringe movement, and that meeting Christ in the Eucharist meant that faith began at that point, not unlike Wesley’s Aldersgate experience, and I was taught that baptism was a prerequisite to the Eucharist.

That said its highly possible the Methodist church I went to was not reflective of what we might call Wesleyan Orthodoxy but was like the Methobaptists of today (those Methodist ministers who strongly promote credobaptism and attempt to discourage paedobaptism by putting, in the case of one UMC parish, artificial impediments, the parish in question celebrating it only four times a year and on their website stating that they preferred to celebrate Believer’s Baptism).

And if you are right, and I suspect you are, this explains where the Stone/Campbell movement, which strikes me as having a Methodist aroma, albeit of the George Whitefield/Countess of Huntingdon variety as they are or rather were theoretically Calvinist, got the idea.

This also gives rise to another question: what ever happened to the Calvinist Methodists?

I have a lot of older Disciplines. But, the view of Communion as a "converting element" comes from Wesley himself. There would have never been any closed communion theology in American Methodism that I know of.

The only possibility I can think of is a difference between Methodist Episcopal South and Methodist Episcopal (the northern denomination.) I have had less contact with older documents from the MEC South as I've always been connected to Methodism through northern congregations.

Most Calvinist Methodists became Presbyterians in the US and England I believe. I know the group that followed Whitefield in England are now Presbyterians.