Posted on 11/29/2006 9:23:13 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Go to Acts 16:33.There it says "his entire household", or "all his family) , or "all his household" or "everyone in his family" when referring to the baptizing of the jailer. No where does it say except for the babies or children.
Another good Presbyterian (assuming that such a thing may exist) here. What you have spoken can be applied to other areas within Presbyterianism as well. The problem is not paedobaptism, the problem is poor instruction. How many youth groups to you see being taught the Westminster Catechism these days? (probably none). Instead they're taught WWJD, or what ever the fad of the year happens to be.
My mom gets a flu shot every year and in January she is always sick from the flu.
I tend to think the flu shot either:
A) doesn't help her,
or
B) causes the flu in her.
"The problem is not paedobaptism, the problem is poor instruction. How many youth groups to you see being taught the Westminster Catechism these days? (probably none). Instead they're taught WWJD, or what ever the fad of the year happens to be."
I agree with you entirely, and that's a major part of my problem. When I was baptized as an infant (my family was Episcopalian), I believe as part of that ceremony my parents vowed they would raise me in the fear and admonition of the Lord. And to make sure that happened, there were also godparents present that promised they would raise me in the fear and admonition of the Lord if my parents failed to do so or died.
Theoretically, if people took their vows seriously, there might not be a problem. But I would suspect that in a lot of "lamestream" churches, baptism might be the one and only time you would see the parents and child. And yet a lot of people think that is sufficient.
In my case, my family stopped going to church entirely when I was six or seven years old--I can't blame them necessarily, because things were getting out of control in the Episcopal Church even back then and I suspect they decided the whole thing was a joke. However, but for the fact that I had Christian friends in high school that essentially converted me, I would be a happy pagan today thinking that "God Is Love And All Dogs Go To Heaven" and that I and everyone else was saved and going to heaven simply because some guy in a funny costume mumbled some words over me and poured water on my forehead.
The problem is being further magnified in the Episcopal Church today, where the latest revisionist argument is that so long as you were baptized, you are entitled, nay, have an inalienable right to all the benefits of the church, and cannot be excluded from anything, no matter whether you are actually a follower of Christ or know or care anything about the Gospel. Of course, the reason for this is so that you can have practicing homosexuals, wiccans, druids and anyone else claim they can be priests or bishops even if their beliefs or lifestyle are totally antithetical to being a Christian.
So, more and more I'm moving to the position where I think baptism should be a visible demonstration of a knowing commitment to follow Christ. I don't know what the theological implications are, e.g., is there regeneration or not, do you need water baptism to receive the Holy Spirit, etc. But to me it's signing on the bottom line and saying, yes I mean it and I'm doing this to show I'm committing my life to Christ.
"lamestream" = "drainline"
Got my derogatory terms for media and churches crossed!
You responded: I will agree with you on that! ...I constantly hold up Cornelius who was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was baptized, and claim baptism had NOTHING to do with his salvation. Baptism came afterward.
Well, I won't go that far to say that Baptism is a useless ritual. Scriptures clearly note that Baptism is the visible means by which the Spirit comes to us. Baptism ITSELF doesn't save, but the Holy Spirit working THROUGH the sacrament does. Cornelius, I suspect, (and the Apostles) would be an exception to the norm - that people receive the Spirit when they are Baptized. Today, that is how we know that the Spirit has come upon someone...
Regards
If you take the rest of the New Testament into consideration, you see that there is no idea of an unbeliever being baptized. With this is mind, it would be an assumption to make the phrase "all his household" include infants.
I think the following taken from the website of the Episcopal church I was baptized in, regarding the meaning of "baptism" and "conversion," sums up totally what I am talking about. Try find a single reference to repenting of your sins and confessing Christ as your savior:
At it's heart, the Journey is about conversion. The language of our Baptismal Covenant presumes we are growing into our faith and ministry. In that Covenant, we vow to "continue" and to "persevere" and to "seek" and to "strive." It presumes we are growing and being transformed. Such Christian transformation is conversion, an essentially human experience of growth and change.
Conversion takes place when one confronts a growing sense of restlessness and separation, when one's world of meaning is challenged or rendered worthless. It is followed by an "in-between" stage marked by disorientation and disillusionment and an intense desire for something distant and unknown. It is resolved when one experiences rebirth and finds new life and renewed purpose. This experience of separation, disillusionment, and renewal - or of death, burial, and resurrection - lies at the very heart of human experience. Jesus endured this in his crucifixion, death, and resurrection; we to endure it when we are plunged into the water of baptism and raised to new life in Christ. It forms the heart of our Christian pilgrimage.
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.