Posted on 05/06/2015 6:08:12 AM PDT by Gamecock
There are plenty of Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran and Methodist churches in Dayton, Ohio, where parents could have an infant child baptized.
But one local couple wanted Rodney Kennedy to baptize their 7-month-old son, even though they knew there was one hurdle to overcome: Kennedy is pastor at First Baptist Church in Dayton.
And Baptists — both generally and specifically — do not baptize infants.
“We knew that asking Rod, he might say no,” said Lucas, the boy’s father who requested only his first name be used in this article.
But Kennedy did not say no, and during worship on Sunday, April 19, he conducted his and his church’s first-ever infant baptism.
“And the congregation burst into applause,” Kennedy told Baptist News Global. “And they don’t applaud much.”
But the time between the request and Kennedy’s “yes” was filled with a month of prayer and discussion between the pastor and leaders of the American Baptist Churches USA congregation.
And informing all of that has been years of increasingly liturgical practice for the church and Kennedy, who describes himself as “somewhat Catholic-Baptist.”
“I already accepted the validity of infant baptism and we don’t make people get baptized” if they were baptized as infants before joining First Baptist, he said.
Since that’s been the church policy for 50 years, Kennedy said it made sense for him to participate in the practice, too.
Even so, Kennedy said the rite had a different feel to it than most baptisms.
“There was an overpowering sense that this was the right thing to do, and there was a sense of God’s presence there,” he said. “It was just a really high and holy moment.”
Only two people have sent him emails outlining traditional Baptist teaching on baptism, he added.
A communal act
The baby’s parents were more than familiar with those teachings. Neither grew up Baptists, but both belonged to traditions that held strongly to the practice of believer’s baptism, Lucas said.
Moving on from those churches to ones with liturgical practices led them to First Baptist. The congregation hosts a number of liturgical services and practices.
“A lot of times when people think about baptism, their first thoughts are about the individual and their salvation — the individual getting to heaven,” he said. “But there is much more about baptism than that.”
Baptism is a communal act through which one is claimed by God into the church as the body of Christ, he said.
More than a symbol
Baptist theologian Beth Newman said she hopes Kennedy’s action will spark conversations in Baptist and wider Christian life about those deeper meanings of Baptism.
“As Christians, we want to say baptism is this one event, but it’s also a way of life,” said Newman, a professor of theology and ethics at Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond.
That was also Newman’s goal in contributing a chapter on baptism in Gathering Together: Baptists at Work in Worship, a 2013 book co-edited by Kennedy.
She wanted to help Baptists see baptism as more than “just a symbol” and to avoid dismissing sacramental views of baptism as Catholic.
“I would say you cannot be baptized apart from the community,” Newman said. “We are baptized into the community — not just into a congregation — but into the whole church.”
Kennedy is the first Baptist pastor Newman said she’s known to baptize and infant. By far, believer’s baptism is the norm among Baptists.
However, many also recognize the need to bring infants into the church.
“A lot of Baptist churches [are doing] baby dedications, which are a way of welcoming the child into the family — though not the membership — of the church,” she said.
Newman said most of the conversations about baptism she’s heard occur in forums hosted by organizations like the Baptist World Alliance.
“It’s not so much in the local congregations,” she said.
But the infant baptism at First Baptist Church in Dayton may help change that.
“Let’s try to talk so we can … understand the richness that baptism has for all of us,” she said.
Moving closer
There was a lot of that kind of discussion at First Baptist for weeks before Kennedy’s decision to go ahead with the baptism.
One topic included the church’s policy, for the past five decades, to welcome new adult members who had been baptized as infants in other traditions — and without re-baptizing them.
They also agreed the Baptist norm is valid and biblical. Kennedy said he is not trying to change that approach but to open a new chapter.
“I want to move closer to the ecumenical fellowship of the Christian church and by accepting infant baptism, and then practicing it, we are not set off from Presbyterians and Methodists and Catholics,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy said he turned down another request for an infant baptism because the parents weren’t members of First Baptist, or willing to join.
That highlights another facet of the his view about infant baptism.
“The purpose of this baptism is for parents to make serious promises and for God to claim him in his grace-filled Kingdom,” Kennedy said. “Baptism is just the beginning of a lifetime process.”
'A disciple of Jesus'
Those promises include a vow to raise the child in the Christian faith and to renounce evil. The text of the ceremony came from the Book of Common Prayer.
Parents unwilling or unable to make those commitments will not have their infants baptized at First Baptist, Kennedy said.
“It won’t be our normative practice,” he said. “But it is an open possibility for parents if they request it.”
Last Sunday, Kennedy held the infant over a small bowl of warm water, used his hands to cup and pour the water over the baby’s head. He also anointed the child with oil and made the sign of cross on his forehead in name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
“Our decision was that whether the baptism or the confession of faith comes first, doesn’t matter,” he said. “Either way you end up with a person who is a disciple of Jesus.”
I would strongly disagree. Baptism isn't required for salvation. If some accepted Jesus as their savior and died in a car crash before they could be baptized, there is no theological problem with saying that they are saved.
If someone isn't baptized and rejects the idea that they need to be baptized for salvation, then there is a theological problem that is above my pay grade.
The thief on the cross is someone who died before he could be baptized, rather than someone who rejected baptism. There is no theological problem with the thief's salvation without baptism.
The distinction between sacrament and ordinance, it would seem to me, is the direction of the act: a sacrament is when God empowers through the action, while in an ordinance, God responds to the action.
If Baptism is an ordinance, then it would of necessity have to be a conscious choice of the baptized, since otherwise there would be nothing to which God could respond. In that case, the Baptists and their fellow travelers would be correct: baptism would have to be an act of a person who has chosen to repent and believe the Gospel.
If Baptism is a sacrament, however, then it would have to be the conscious act of the baptizer, since God would be working through the act. In other words, the baptizer would engage in an act which s/he clearly intends to be a baptism (as opposed to, say, a shower, or diving), and an infant, who is incapable of repentance, would thereby obtain God's grace and sanctification based on the faith of the parent (cf. Acts 16:33).
That would not necessarily mean, however, that the baptizer would have to grasp the totality of what God was doing in order for the sacrament to occur, since God does not need us to understand His actions in order to act.
So if baptism is a sacrament, and Rev. Baptistminister thinks it is an ordinance, God's action in the sacrament would be no less, because God is not constricted by our misunderstanding of His actions--for which we can thank Him, since all of us misunderstand His actions some of the time.
And I would take it one step further, though it is off the topic here. If the Real Presence of Christ is in the bread and wine of communion, then it is there, regardless of whether the institutor and/or the partaker believe it to be there. When I receive communion from my LCMS pastor, he and I believe that the Presence is there. That Rev. Baptistminister does not accept the Presence in communion is of no account: God is not limited by our lack of understanding, for which I thank Him, since I am sure I have a lack of understanding of most, if not all, of what He does. What "saves" Rev. Baptistminister is that he, when he institutes communion in his church's worship, does not desecrate the elements, but treats them with respect--he may not follow the divine liturgy or use a chalice pall, but his (mis?)understanding of communion as an ordinance leads him to act in ways that demonstrate his willingness to meet God there, and God shows Himself in ways that would surprise the minister, were he to truly understand them.
,i>Hey Baptists: Is this how y'all see Baptism, as "just a symbol"?
I'm not sure what meaning they, uh, pour into it. I usually see it described as mainly a believer's act of obedience.
"Faith plus works equals salvation."
You say of Acts 2:37-39:
This tells us that baptism is necessary for the remission (forgiveness) of sins.
This is most certainly not so, for in the passage cited Peter is not saying this at all. In the Koine, the preposition "eis" in this passage does not have the sense "be baptized . . . to confer remission of sins . . .", which would negate repentance and belief as a reality prior to the act of baptism.
No, the correct interpretation of this preposition "eis" is that it means "be baptized . . . on the basis of sins already remitted . . ."; that is, the moment that God (who looks on the human heart with foreknowledge) has discerned in the beseeching soul a commitment to an eternally persistent repentant trust in Jesus, immediately forgives and forgets past sins, and creates a new being. On that basis, the new-born spiritual human candidate is now fit for induction into Christ's body of disciples by the funeral rite of baptism. That baptism--subsequent to and substantiated by confession of the new-born babe--signifies death to self, to Sin as a master, and to the world system; and recognizes the authority under which the human's life enlistment as a servant-disciple of Jesus, Lord and Christ, is inaugurated.
Furthermore, you interpret Acts 22:16 as saying, "So then, baptism washes away sins." That is not correct, for this sentence does not necessarily connect baptism with washing away of sins. You merely inferred that. In fact, that cannot be correct, for it is only the Blood of Christ that washes away one's sins; and being under The Blood is initiated by faith, and activated by confession, by agreeing with God concerning His Inner Witness.
In summary, interpreting the water baptism, which is a rite of induction into discipleship, as being instead a rite which imparts forgiveness of sins, is simply inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus, Peter, John, and Paul of salvation by faith.
That is why I cannot accept your handling of God's plan of salvation, which is embodied succinctly in Ephesians 2:8-10, and simply restated:
"Faith plus salvation equals works."
Out of this, one of the first works is water baptism as a visible rite of passage from spiritual death into spiritual life.
You don't have anything to be disagreeable about.
First, on the Cross, the Mosaic Covenant, The Law, was in effect and Jesus was fulfilling it. Why don't you read over carefully what I wrote.
Children are not accountable therefore they cannot repent of any sin.
Children are not accountable therefore they cannot repent of any sin.
Ever heard of godparents and parents who speak for the child?
“Ever heard of godparents and parents who speak for the child?”
Ever hear of a parent who can drag their child unwillingly into the Kingdom?
If you can repent of sin on behalf of others, why not repent for everyone and save everyone? Why not repent for every prisoner in a prison, and then forcibly baptize them and turn them all into children of God? Why not repent for the homeless, then splash some water on them so they will be saved?
And yet your denomination cherry picks a bunch of scripture and makes a nice little story out of it...
The only method that works to understanding the scriptures is to believe ALL the scriptures...You can't leave out the ones that don't fit your particular beliefs as your (and other) religion does...
It's funny when you guys accuse us of cherry picking a scripture or 20 and then find it impossible to comment on where that/those supposed cherry picked scriptures go...What they apply to...They become invisible to you guys...We are to use ALL the scripture and then divide it to apply it where it goes...
An interesting point of view.
How do you reconcile the view of a sacrament, when God empowers through the action with the definition: An efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us through the work of the Holy Spirit
Also, can you clarify what you mean, God responds to the action when speaking of an "ordinance?"
So if baptism is a sacrament, and Rev. Baptistminister thinks it is an ordinance, God's action in the sacrament would be no less, because God is not constricted by our misunderstanding of His actions--for which we can thank Him, since all of us misunderstand His actions some of the time.
First, let me point out that the Catholic Church accepts as valid any baptism that is done using a Trinitarian formula ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"...as opposed to "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier" or some other variant) and that uses water as matter. I accept the ruling.
However, the Code of Canon Law states, Can 832 §2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism. Frankly, although I accept the Church's decision on the matter, I linger with the question if the intent of a "ordinance" type baptism (either that of the baptizer or the baptized) is the same as the intent of those doing a "sacramental" baptism. The comments in this thread, frankly, reinforce that questioning.
Frankly, I wonder if those who practice "ordinance" baptism subscribe to the line from the Nicene-Constantinopalitan Creed that says I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
Excellent point....Poor babe that does not get infant baptism goes straight to hell..NOT
The pastor has his reasons, and there are solid reasons out there from baby baptizing denominations, but what he did simply isn’t Baptist.
And the church should take “Baptist” off their sign.
And a Catholic church that ordains female priests should take “Catholic” off their sign.
And a Presbyterian church that refuses to have elders should take Presbyterian off their sign.
etc.
‘xactly.
I believe to Baptists it is just a symbol. We may agree or disagree with them, but that’s their belief
Thank you for enlightening me. I need to restudy the timing of all of this since the new covenant and the church was not established until after Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. At this time, the thief was most likely a Jew who had not been baptized. Was the act of baptism necessary of both Jew or Gentile in either the old or new covenants or both?
Thanks again, FYI, as a true believer I was baptized way back in my college days. Wouldn’t want to be caught on a misunderstanding or technicality. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.