The Town Hall Archives

-Mellow boy · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2003 10:12 pm Post subject:

i was baptized when I was 8 I think Confused

Melissa · Junior Member Joined: 20 Apr 2003 Posts: 130

Uhhh, well, I did jump in, but I agreed with you rather than my church! Actually, I myself disagree with a lot of what my church says/believes. :oops:

And no, my church is not a Lutheran church, but you were very close. It is an Anglican church, but seeing as Anglican/Episcopalian has sort of joined with the Lutheran church, you were extremely close. Smile

The Top Crusader · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2003 10:32 pm Post subject:

At the church I was raised in, we had baby dedications, but didn't actually baptize them. Idea

E87M2 · Senior Member Joined: 11 Jan 2003 Posts: 1106

rosie · Inquisitive Member Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Posts: 1197

I agree with Jared, but I don't see what's wrong with sprinkling. Just a symbol, doesn't really matter. While we are at it, why don't we do communion thing the same as at the last supper? Duh, because it doesn't matter. It's a symbol.

I've never been baptized... I guess I should. But it involves standing in front of a crowd. *shudder*

Jared · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:45 am Post subject:

I think sprinkling is the wrong choice because, as a symbol, it has no meaning. The immersion process IS a picture of salvation; sprinkling is not. So what exactly is the point of it?

As for the Lord's Supper, well, there are a few differences. For one, it is done in remembrance, not in an outward show of salvation. Also, most DO follow it relatively closely... I don't think the remembrance is lost if the bread is not quite the type they would have had then and I definitely have no problem with the wine being replaced with juice. The people at the original meal were all adults, but that's not true in churches.

I think in the Lord's Table, the image of it IS kept and more importantly, it DOES serve as a resemblance, even with some minor differences.

E87M2 · Senior Member Joined: 11 Jan 2003 Posts: 1106

*AHEM* All right, here is my church's views on baptism.

MEANING: What is the meaning of baptism?
1. Batism symbolized in three things:
A. Our being washed free of sin by the righteousness of Christ.
B. Our entering into union witht eh Father, Son and Holy Spirit
C. Our being set aside, marked, named, or designated as belonging
to God.
2. Love for Christ will cause a person to want to be baptized, but our eternal salvation: 1st, is not dependent on it. (Luke 23:39-43) and 2nd, is not gaurenteed by it. (Acts 8:13,21)

3. Baptism is also an outward symbol of our coming into the church and is based on a public, credible profession of true faith in Christ.

4. Baptism is based on what Christ has already done for us, rather than something we can do for Him and does not need to be repeated.

METHOD: How do we baptize?
Traditionally, and in practice, my church baptizes by sprinkling, but recognizes all three methods as being valid (Immersion, pouring, or sprinkling)
Why do we believe this? Because of the ways the Greek words are used throughout the Bible:
1st: In the Septuagint:
2 Kings 5:14 - Naaman and the Jordan
Leviticus 14:6,51,52 - The bird's blood
Daniel 4:33 & 5:21- Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and the dew
2nd: In the New Testiment:
Luke 11:38, Matt 15:2, Mark 7:2-5 - Jesus washing at dinner
Mark 7: Baptidzo & Hrantzo-Sprinkle
Hebrews 9:10-13 - Divers washings; in v. 13, sprinkling was included.
Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5 - "Baptism of the Spirit."
In Acts 2: The flames of fire sat upon them.
..etc..etc.

C. SUBJECTS: Who is to be baptized?
My church will baptize those who make a credible profession of true faith, and their infant children.
Shorter Catechism #95 "Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to Him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized."

In the Scriptures:
In the explicit commands to baptize, there are no explicit instructions stating who is to be baptized. It is implicit that baptism would laways involve some credible profession of true faith (Matt. 28:19)
(It is also true that no explicit statement of scripture rules out either women or children)
Among the precedents, in scripture, of those who were baptized are:
Acts 2:41- 3,000 at one time
Acts 8:12- People in Samaria
Acts 9:18- Paul of Tarsus
Acts 10:47, 48- "Cornelius" and "his household"
Acts 16:15- Lydia, a woman
Acts 16:33- Phipippian Jailor "and his household"

There is no explicit command to baptize infants, and there is no explicit example where an infant was baptized.
But, there is direct explicit command in the OT for parents of all believing Jews to circumcise their infants at age of 8 days.
And there are many other practices and teachings which we accept as true and valid which are not explicitly stated in Scripture.
E.G. There is no explicit NT command to authorize women to partake of communion- and no NT example or precedent of a woman ever partaking of communion. And there were only men present with the Lord at the first communion.

When Christinaity was New: Focus was on adults through NT times; but in both the OT and the NT, God was focussed first on the family, second on church and state.

Anyway, hope this helps..... Smile

Coralfish · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:18 pm Post subject:

hawkeye · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 7:32 pm Post subject:

I agree with Jared in most points, but I agree with the other side on baby baptisms. Also, independently of my view, my church does baby baptisms, 'sprinkling' (finger dipped and the water is dabbed on the babies' forehead).

The baptism is the parent's commitment to raise the child by the Bible. Nothing more.

Eugene Kendall™ · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 7:49 pm Post subject:

no
yes
no
no