Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[jmcrae]

Though you may wish to transfer that concept to baptism, I do not believe it is something the gospel writer had in his mind in writing of that event.

This is St. John we are talking about, who never wrote anything without many layers of meaning attached to it.

I am quite sure he meant for us to be reminded of Eve coming forth from Adam’s side - here we have the two most important Sacraments of the Church pouring forth from Christ’s side - Baptism, and Eucharist.

 

[NotWorthy]

The only symbolism embodied in that “water” was the demonstratable sign that Jesus was actually dead. Besides the term “water” used there is a euphamism, like when a person “makes water”. It is referring to a bodily fluid, not H2O. In Jesus’ case the blood had separated into its constituent parts and the rather clear liquid was not water but actually the blood serum that carries the red corpusles.

Many things in scripture are symbolic and intended to be spirituallize, but not everything. Something are simply descriptive events. Though you may wish to transfer that concept to baptism, I do not believe it is something the gospel writer had in his mind in writing of that event.

Uhhhh, I think he was joking.

But he is far more accurate than you would think. Jesus had said in John’s Gospel that he must leave for the Holy Spirit to come. As you well know, water is the symbol for the Holy Spirit. What’s happening here is that the author of John’s Gospel is showing that it is Christ’s death that brought the Holy Spirit.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I agree that John certainly referenced lots of symbolism in his gospel. And perhaps you want to infer something from the mentioning. But just because we infer it does not mean that it was actually implied. Sometimes we do not read the scriptures deeply enough and you may think I’m making that mistake in this passage. On the other hand, sometimes I think we can actually read to deeply, looking for things that are not there. And while I appreciate the sentiments expressed in the last two post, I still think we have stretched too far if we see in John’s description of Jesus’ death references having to do with baptism.

 

[NotWorthy]

I agree that John certainly referenced lots of symbolism in his gospel. And perhaps you want to infer something from the mentioning. But just because we infer it does not mean that it was actually implied. Sometimes we do not read the scriptures deeply enough and you may think I’m making that mistake in this passage. On the other hand, sometimes I think we can actually read to deeply, looking for things that are not there. And while I appreciate the sentiments expressed in the last two post, I still think we have stretched too far if we see in John’s description of Jesus’ death references having to do with baptism.

I agree. The water that flowed symbolized the Holy Spirit, Who could only come after Jesus was gone. We see the Holy Spirit often associated with water going all the way back to Genesis chapter 1.

 

[mercygate]

The only symbolism embodied in that “water” was the demonstratable sign that Jesus was actually dead. Besides the term “water” used there is a euphamism, like when a person “makes water”. It is referring to a bodily fluid, not H2O. In Jesus’ case the blood had separated into its constituent parts and the rather clear liquid was not water but actually the blood serum that carries the red corpusles.

Many things in scripture are symbolic and intended to be spirituallize, but not everything. Something are simply descriptive events. Though you may wish to transfer that concept to baptism, I do not believe it is something the gospel writer had in his mind in writing of that event.

Pastor Grace – I think you jumped into a bit of banter here that is connected to the subject of the thread but not at the core of it…

My comment was that both blood and water flowed from the side of Jesus and that by that sign baptism and the Covenant Blood are linked inseparably. The Church has from earliest times taken this moment to be the pouring forth of the Church (the bride) from the side of Christ (the Bridegroom) as Eve came forth from the side of Adam.

It doesn’t matter that the “water” was blood serum minus red cells. John calls it “water.” The Early Fathers read this as a symbol of baptism. It would not matter at all whether John had baptism in mind. The text easily bears that interpretation.

 

[mercygate]

I agree that John certainly referenced lots of symbolism in his gospel. And perhaps you want to infer something from the mentioning. But just because we infer it does not mean that it was actually implied. Sometimes we do not read the scriptures deeply enough and you may think I’m making that mistake in this passage. On the other hand, sometimes I think we can actually read to deeply, looking for things that are not there. And while I appreciate the sentiments expressed in the last two post, I still think we have stretched too far if we see in John’s description of Jesus’ death references having to do with baptism.

You’re a Methodist Pastor. How could you not have come across this stuff in your studies? This isn’t new or innovative. The Blood and Water from Christ’s side have been read as Eucharist and Baptism at LEAST since St. John Chrysostom (349-407 – whom we commemorate tomorrow).

 

[minkymurph]

Hmmm. But water gushed from His side as well as blood. Sounds to me like a package deal.

Yes, I would agree with this. As far as my understanding goes, the two go hand in hand, blood was poured out for the forgiveness of sins, and baptism, the cleansing of sin. Therefore, we need to be forgiven AND cleansed which is why baptism and Eucharist are unbreakably linked. They stand together, not separately. Two sacraments, two functions, yet one. I may not have explained it very well. Hope everyone understands what I mean.

 

[guanophore]

**I disagree that a baby’s sin nature in and of itself keeps it out of heaven. **

If original sin was no enough to keep us out of heaven, what point is there for Jesus to come?
Phil12123;2707273:

Would you say the millions of innocent (yes, I will use that word) aborted babies are kept out of heaven because they were never baptized?

Catholics also consider these holocaust victims to be innocent of person sin. But, no, we don’t believe they are kept out of heaven because they were never baptized, but because we believe that original sin leaves mankind in a fallen state,and nothing fallen can enter heaven.

Tell me what kind of God you believe in who will have their souls in the lake of fire for an eternity because they never had some ritual performed, words said, water sprinkled, etc.

Catholics also believe in a baptism of suffering/blood, the same as the thief had on the cross next to Jesus. We also entrust their souls to a faithful creator. Although baptism is the normative means that Jesus left us, we also recognize that He can save whoever He wants, by whatever means He desires.

**It is only the blood of Christ that washes away sin, not water. The water may be a sign, symbol, or representation of His blood’s cleansing but that is all. **

The Apostles taught that the merits of the blood of Christ are applied to a person during baptism. It is true, the water is a symbol, but like all the sacramental symbols, it contains and effects that which it represents.

5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is sure. Titus 3:5-8
Phil12123;2707273:

Those of the age of reason have their sins washed away when they repent and put their faith in the One Who shed His blood and rose again. The water merely symbolizes what His blood has already done, as well as to identify the new believer with the other believers and their community of faith. Those who are under the age of reason and have no capacity to repent and have faith in Him, are IMHO as fit for heaven as the new believer.

This point of view is consistent with Cathlic teaching in some aspecs. Original sin can be washed away at any age. The water does symbolize the washing with th eblood of Jesus. For those below the age of reason, the faith and repentance of the parents adn godparents are accepted on behalf of the child.

 

[guanophore]

Phil, I have a real life issue that relates to believer’s baptism. I am honestly interested in your take on it. Here’s the story:

I was at Hardee’s and a lady noticed that I had my Bible with me and asked me if I was a pastor. Conversation ensued and she asked me if I baptized people and in what name.

Me: Yes. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Turns out she understands herself to be a Christian, but she has never been baptized, and she would like to be. But here is the deal. She doesn’t want to be baptized into the membership of any given church. She just wants to be baptized in Jesus’ name and then to go about her business her own way, quite apart from any local congregation.

(There’s one more wrinkle too, but I’ll share that later if appropriate.)

So, it would definitley be a case of believer’s baptism. But she is not willing to be discipled, except by her own interpretation of scripture apart from any faith community. What do you think of that?

This is not a case of believer’s baptism. A profession of faith includes Jesus’ Body, which is not to be separated from it’s Head, who is Christ. They go together.

 

[guanophore]

** But what you are saying is that the officers discussed it with the Commander and came away from that discussion with a bottom line of, you can baptize non-disciples and nonbelievers, too. That would be a contradiction of what the Commander originally commanded, which cannot be.**

You are right, Phil. Jesus would not contradict Himself. He gave this commandment to those who were first sons of the Old Covenant, of which He was also a descendent. All of them clearly understood that those born to parents who were part of the covenant were to be brought into that covenant, and raised within it. He did NOT say to baptize non-disciples and non-believers. He gave this command to those that understood they were to raise their children in the faith.

** Think about what the original command was. Go into all the world and, in effect, win the lost to Me, convert the lost, get people saved, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM to obey all that I have commanded you, including this command to go into all the world and win the lost, convert the lost, get people saved. Perhaps you are hung up on the word “disciple” but when we read Matt 28 in conjunction with Mark 16, it should be clear that Jesus is using the word “disciple” in terms of a believer or a convert. Go preach the Gospel and whoever hears and believes it, repenting of sin, should be baptized. Whoever does not believe it is condemned.
**

This is consistent with the Catholic teaching with regard to adults. Infants of believers are to be raised as believers, and in constant conversion.

** I thought you said you got my point. Apparently not. Forget the family dog, since it is “unclean.” Let’s say, another family pet, such as a young lamb that is raised by one of the children of the family and loved by all as if it were one of the children. Like the one Nathan told about in his confrontation with David (2 Sam. 12:3). Should that lamb be baptized? Of course not, because it is not a disciple or believer or convert and therefore Jesus did not command that it be baptized. The same is true of infants until they become disciples or believers or converts.**

I am sorry, Phil, but animals do not have eternal souls like people do, so there are no "family pets’ you can use that will make your point. Catholics believe that the New is concealed in the Old, and therefore, we understand circumcision to be the prefigurement to the initiation rite into the New Covenant.

 

[guanophore]

** Baptism of nonbelievers is not even contemplated. **

I agree with this statement in the case of adult converts. However, I think it is equally valid to say that failing to initiate children of believers would not be contemplated.

** A family with an infant may “claim” the infant for Jesus, as you say, but that does not a disciple (or believer) make.**

No, but we know that God makes the parents responsible for their children until they come of age. The child does make a decision when they are old enough, but until that time, they are counted as part of the parent’s decisions.

** How does baptizing an infant, who has no faith, “into the community faith” not trivialize the Gospel? Until it has faith, the infant is already in the community in terms of being raised by members of the faith community. When it has its own faith, it then truly becomes a member of the faith community. Not before. **

I think this understanding of the life of faith is just limited. If we are use the OT as a model, it is clear that children are considered members of the faith community all along. Yes, Jesus and HIs Apostles did have a bar mitzvah at 13, giving their own “adult” consent to become “sons of the covenant”, but up until that time, they are still considered members of that faith community.

** As I mentioned in some other post, to baptize an infant displays lack of faith on the parents’ part, that somehow their soul is in jeopardy without baptism, when in fact it is not. **

Well, we clearly have a difference of understanding of the nature of original sin. Catholics believe that we are separated from eternal life through original sin. On the contrary, I think baptism IS a demonstration of faith on the part of the parents, who trust fully in God that they will be able to raise the child in the faith.

** And what of the infant who grows up and never professes any faith, despite all the best efforts of the parents to raise it in a godly manner, etc. What did the baptism as an infant accomplish?**

I don’t see how that is any different than those disciples who followed Jesus, were baptized, then left Him when they could no longer tolerate His teachings (see Jn. chap. 6)

** When the infant reaches the age of reason and rejects the Gospel, he or she becomes as any other nonbeliever or pagan, so the infant baptism accomplished nothing, showing, logically, that Christ never commanded it in the first place.**

I think this is not right. I think their last state is worse than the first. They have been exposed to the teachings, and therefore, have been made responsible by what they know. They are like the seed that falls upon rocky ground, that springs up, then withers.

 

[guanophore]

** I never said baptism makes a person a Christian, and I’ve repeatedly said it is repentance and faith that makes a person a Christian, with baptism merely identifying the new Christian with the other believers and the community of faith. ** ****

Baptism makes one a member of the household of God, and of His Church. A person has a choie whether or not they wish to stay in the house.

** Lastly, you admit that in baptizing infants you are baptizing non-Christians, and you think that is what Christ commanded you to do? Based on… people like Judas being a “disciple” of Christ? That is very shaky ground, shaky hermeneutics, to say the least.
**

I believe that the commandment of Christ to baptize disciples and teach them is to be applied to adults.

Me to Grace Seeker:

Have you ever heard of tearing something out of its context and making it say something that was never intended? That is what you have done with “you and your household.” That verse (Acts 16:31) deals with believing to be saved and has nothing to do with baptism. The most you can make of that verse is, if the jailor believes in Jesus, he and his entire household will be saved. That is doing an incredible injustice to that verse. But in any event, it does not say anything about baptizing infants.

Well, let’s look at the passage:

31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house, and set food before them; and he rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God. Acts 16:30-34

As you can see, saving faith and baptism are inextricably connected, just as they are throughout the NT and the early church until this day. It is true that the verse does not say anything about infants. But, it also does NOT say that everyone was made into a disciple first, or that they were “taught”, or that they were all adults. They believed the gospel, and were baptized.

**
No, it is through faith and by the grace of God that the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice is applied to men (Eph. 2:8-9), not through water and the hands of men.**

They are not to be separated, Phil. The gospel is preached (by men), the hearers believe, and then they are baptized (by men). Jesus has ordained that His message of salvation to the world should come through men, and that the “circumcision of the heart” by the HS should be done in cooperation with the actions of men.

 

[guanophore]

** And why do you conclude Christ’s command in Matt. 28 and Mark 16 “relates to adults”? You do realize, don’t you, that those two passages are the ONLY scriptures in which Jesus says that anyone** should be baptized? That being the case, by saying they relate to adults, you are forced to conclude that Jesus commanded that only adults be baptized.

Well, it may seem that way to you, but since I am not limited to these verses with regard to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, I am not concerned about that at all. I recognize that Jesus taught His Apostles everything, and they passed that teaching on LONG BEFORE these verses were written. I can fully trust that the teaching I have received, in addition to these verses, comes equally from Jesus.

** So, you are correct that “it does not necessarily preclude children” i.e. children who have reached the age of reason.**

Well, at least we can agree on something!

** You must have missed my point. In the discussion of household baptisms, infants would no more be baptized simply because their parents were believers than the family pet (also a “member” of the household), because Jesus did not command that infants be baptized any more than He commanded family pets be baptized.**

We disagree, Phil. Catholics don’t consider children “pets” like animals who are members of a houselhold, but precious gifts of God that belong to the God who conceived them, and have an eternal soul. Jesus said to let the children come to Him, and did no specify any age. And since we believe that baptism has replaced circumcision as the initiation rite into the covenant, it seems perfectly reasonable to us to baptize infants.

**
When does the profession of faith become a requirement for adults, young adults, children, young children, infants? What age? Where and when do you draw the line?**

The profession of faith is ALWAYS a requirement for each of the sacraments, including baptism. No one is to be baptized without the profession of faith. The “age of reason” has been debated throughout history. Modern psychology has helped us to understand the moral development of children more clearly. At present, children are offered first communion around in elementary grades, and confirmation (in the US) during high school.

**God told Abraham that males were to be circumcised at 8 days. No profession of faith was ever a requirement for circumcision. Not so in the case of baptism. Faith was always a requirement for baptism. Nonbelievers were never baptized.
**

I think you are wrong, Phil. No one was circumcised without a profession of faith. Infants were cirucumcised on the basis of their parents profession of faith. Converts to Judiasm had to make a profession of faith, and those born into the covenant were circumcised as a matter of the faith practice of the household in which they were born.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You’re a Methodist Pastor. How could you not have come across this stuff in your studies? This isn’t new or innovative. The Blood and Water from Christ’s side have been read as Eucharist and Baptism at LEAST since St. John Chrysostom (349-407 – whom we commemorate tomorrow).

I guess I just wasn’t as schooled in symbolism as my Catholic breathern are.

Today I heard an explanation of the unevenness of the steps that lead to the temple mount – no two consecutive steps have the same rise or depth, sometimes verying not just by inches but even feet. Now, to a 21st century person as myself, it just looks like in the construction they had neither the ability nor inclination to make them even. However, I read today that the rabbis have provided a symbolic interpretation to this fact, stating that if they were all evenly spaced that man might take to casually and easity his ability to approach God. But the true journey to God is uneven and requires that we pay attention to where we walk, for if we hurry to fast and to sure of ourselve we will surely stumble and fall as we ought and end up on a face before God.

I love that interpretation. I think it makes a lot of sense and is a good reminder to us. But, that doesn’t mean I think they were built that way to teach that lesson. Rather it is a lesson we learn after contemplation on the reality of the walk. Likewise with the symbolism you see in the water and the blood. I commend those who see it and let it speak to them, and maybe you’re right that John had already made that connection in his own mind before he wrote it. He was indeed one to use lots of symbols. But I won’t go so far as to say that is why it came out that way, I think it did for the simple reason that Jesus was already dead.

But I will acede to those who have looked deeper at the passage and gained more meaning in their faith than I had in the past. I can see how it can speak to these things you find dear. I won’t use it to form my theology, but I will let it bless that which is already formed.

And my apologies for being a distraction from the original content of this thread.

 

[NotWorthy]

But I will acede to those who have looked deeper at the passage and gained more meaning in their faith than I had in the past. I can see how it can speak to these things you find dear. I won’t use it to form my theology, but I** will let it bless that which is already formed**.

Well Put!!!

And my apologies for being a distraction from the original content of this thread.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, my friend!!!

 

[mercygate]

I guess I just wasn’t as schooled in symbolism as my Catholic breathern are.

Get ready! Ambrose and Augustine were really GOOD at it! It is a way to render texts approachable when other levels of meaning might escape us. Mustn’t let the poetical aspect cloud the author’s intent, though. But can be (not always) a different level of exegesis. Here’s a Catholic view on the different levels of meaning in Scripture. The summary starts at #115.

Today I heard an explanation of the unevenness of the steps that lead to the temple mount – no two consecutive steps have the same rise or depth, sometimes verying not just by inches but even feet. Now, to a 21st century person as myself, it just looks like in the construction they had neither the ability nor inclination to make them even. However, I read today that the rabbis have provided a symbolic interpretation to this fact, stating that if they were all evenly spaced that man might take to casually and easity his ability to approach God. But the true journey to God is uneven and requires that we pay attention to where we walk, for if we hurry to fast and to sure of ourselve we will surely stumble and fall as we ought and end up on a face before God.

I just LOVE this stuff! Whether or not the steps were intentionally built unevenly, the explanation provides a better reason than the builders intended!

I love that interpretation. I think it makes a lot of sense and is a good reminder to us. But, that doesn’t mean I think they were built that way to teach that lesson. Rather it is a lesson we learn after contemplation on the reality of the walk.

I just love this stuff, too!

Likewise with the symbolism you see in the water and the blood. I commend those who see it and let it speak to them, and maybe you’re right that John had already made that connection in his own mind before he wrote it. He was indeed one to use lots of symbols. But I won’t go so far as to say that is why it came out that way, I think it did for the simple reason that Jesus was already dead.

No quarrel with you on that one! We have a similar interpretation with the mixing of the Cup. A drop of water is placed in the chalice with the wine before the Consecration. For us, this symbolizes the “water” of our humanity being mixed with the Blood of Christ. It also symbolizes the water that flowed from His side. Originally, it probably started simply because in the ancient world wine was always mixed with a little water before it was drunk. Does that mean the symbolism is void? Of course not. The physical world is uncanny in the way it reflects the divine. Some liturgists scoff at the retention of such ancient gestures but I say we would be impoverished by their deletion.

And yes: water and blood DID both flow from Jesus’ side. And water and blood are the two signs of the Christian Covenant. I think in this case our reading of the signs is very accurate.

But I will acede to those who have looked deeper at the passage and gained more meaning in their faith than I had in the past. I can see how it can speak to these things you find dear. I won’t use it to form my theology, but I will let it bless that which is already formed.

And my apologies for being a distraction from the original content of this thread.

I do not think this is much of a distraction. BTW, as a Methodist, you DO believe in baptismal regeneration, do you not? Or am I harking back to my Episcopalian days in thinking that?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

BTW, as a Methodist, you DO believe in baptismal regeneration, do you not? Or am I harking back to my Episcopalian days in thinking that?

Me personally, or the United Methodist Church?

Me personally – no, I don’t. If I really believed it only took water and a prayer to save people, I would be flying firefighter tanker planes over every human populous I could find. While I think that there is grace available in infant baptism, I don’t think that it is regenerating grace but prevenient grace. And in adult baptism regeneration has already taken place through the faith of the person being baptized before they are baptized. As far as what would happen with a child that died, both the one that died before and after baptism would be equally dependent on (and I think we can even say assured of) God’s grace to be saved. But as people become resistive to God’s place in their lives, it becomes important that they turn their lives over to God and quit resisting him – this is equally important whether one has or has not been baptized, whether one is an infant or an adult – this process by which we quit resisting and start submitting means that we no longer put our trust in our own work (or works) but that we trust in the work of Christ to reconnect us with God. This trust is what I mean by belief in Christ. Ultimately, it is this faith, not our work nor the work of baptism that saves us, and thus I do not see baptism as being reginerative, but trust in Christ as being regenerative giving us new life.

The United Methodist Church – well if you read John Wesley he seemed to be of two different minds on the subject depending on whether he was preaching a sermon on “The Means Of Grace” (in which case, like a good Anglican, he sought baptism as a means of regenerating grace) or a sermon on “The Scriptural Way Of Salvation” (in which case he spoke of the importance of believing to be saved). So, on the one hand, Wesley affirmed that baptism was itself a means of justification and regeneration – that those who have been baptized have been justified and born again. Then on the other hand, Wesley warned that mature persons cannot “rely on” baptism, since it is possible to deny the faith into which one was baptized.

I think there is some of this double-mindedness left in the United Methodist Church. As a child and a young pastor, it was clear that while the United Methodist Church practiced infant baptism, we still expected every person to make a confession of faith for inclusion in the membership of the church. For instance a baptized infant was placed on the church prepatory role, and then on the official role only when confirmed. There was very little talk of baptismal regeneration. And our Articles of Religion (which were mostly taken from the Articles of Religion of the Church of England) significantly deleted the line from the Anglican Articles of Religion which stated “as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church.”

Then about 10 years ago we made, in my opinion, a big change. We adopted a study of baptism which sounds very much like regenerational baptism in its theology. Among other things, we now consider any person baptized in the church to be a full member of the church. We still do confirmation, but I’m no longer sure what the real point of it is, except that of course we’ve always done confirmation. Yet our United Methodist Confession of Faith (we have one, though we are not a “confessing” church) describes baptism as not an instrument but merely a “symbol of repentance and inner cleansing from sin.”

So, you want to know what the United Methodist Church believes? Don’t ask me. I don’t think we know ourselves. (How’s that for cynical honesty? )

 

[mercygate]

Me personally, or the United Methodist Church?

Me personally – no, I don’t. If I really believed it only took water and a prayer to save people, I would be flying firefighter tanker planes over every human populous I could find. While I think that there is grace available in infant baptism, I don’t think that it is regenerating grace but prevenient grace. And in adult baptism regeneration has already taken place through the faith of the person being baptized before they are baptized. As far as what would happen with a child that died, both the one that died before and after baptism would be equally dependent on (and I think we can even say assured of) God’s grace to be saved. But as people become resistive to God’s place in their lives, it becomes important that they turn their lives over to God and quit resisting him – this is equally important whether one has or has not been baptized, whether one is an infant or an adult – this process by which we quit resisting and start submitting means that we no longer put our trust in our own work (or works) but that we trust in the work of Christ to reconnect us with God. This trust is what I mean by belief in Christ. Ultimately, it is this faith, not our work nor the work of baptism that saves us, and thus I do not see baptism as being reginerative, but trust in Christ as being reginerative giving us new life.

The United Methodist Church – well if you read John Wesley he seemed to be of two different minds on the subject depending on whether he was preaching a sermon on “The Means Of Grace” (in which case, like a good Angiclan, he sought baptism as a means of regenerating grace) or a sermon on “The Scriptural Way Of Salvation” (in which case he spoke of the importance of believing to be saved). So, on the one hand, Wesley affirmed that baptism was itself a means of justification and regeneration – that those who have been baptized have been justified and born again. Then on the other hand, Wesley warned that mature persons cannot “rely on” baptism, since it is possible to deny the faith into which one was baptized.

I think there is some of this double-mindedness left in the United Methodist Church. As a child and a young pastor, it was clear that we practiced infant baptism, but still expected every person to make a confession of faith for inclusion in the membership of the church. For instance a baptized infant was place on the church prepatory role, and then on the official role when confirmed. There was very little talk of baptismal regeneration. And our Articles of Religion (which were mostly taken from the Articles of Religion of the Church of England) significantly deleted the line from the Anglican Articles of Religion which stated “as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church.”

Then about 10 years ago we made, in my opinion, a big change. We adopted a study of baptism which sounds very much like regenerational baptism in its theology. Among other things, we now consider any person baptized in the church to be a full member of the church. We still do confirmation, but I’m no longer sure what the real point of it is, except that of course we’ve always done confirmation. Yet our United Methodist Confession of Faith (we have one, though we are not a “confessing” church) describes baptism as a “symbol of repentance and inner cleansing from sin.”

So, you want to know what the United Methodist Church believes? Don’t ask me. I don’t think we know ourselves. (How’s that for cynical honesty? )

Wow. I hear you. You sound confused – the subject is manifold; that’s no detraction from you. You believe in effective grace through baptism but not regeneration? The UMC believes something different whenever it re-addresses the question? Not uncommon in mainstream American Protestantism.

When I was Anglican, I held the Catholic view, which is similar to yours in some ways. The Catholic Church also believes that one is a full Christian and full member of the Church at Baptism. Confirmation is part of the Sacrament, although in our history it was separated from the first part of the initiation rites. The Orthodox and our own Eastern Catholics baptize, confirm, and give Communion all at once: to infants. The theological position on that makes more sense than our way. But our way allows for the cultural (but not theological) opportunity for a young person to claim his baptism publicly. We sometimes say that Confirmation is a Sacrament in search of a theology.

 

[NotWorthy]

Mercygate and GraceSeeker, I’ve enjoyed your discussion on symbolism, and whether the author meant it or not.

I’m drawn to the prophecies in the OT, where the prophets probably had no clue what would be the outcome of their prophecies. For instance, Isaiah 7:14 (and the virgin shall conceive…) was thought to be fulfilled in Isaiah’s time with Ahaz (?). It wasn’t till Matthew brought to light that the prophecy saw it’s complete fulfillment in Jesus and Mary.

Maybe John and the other authors didn’t realize the symbolism that they were bringing into the Church. After all, it’s the Holy Spirit who is ultimately the source of these writings. And maybe it’s the Holy Spirit who is guiding the Church to come to understand the significance of these words, later on as the Church becomes mature enough to understand them.

Mercygate, in reference to your water and wine being mixed prior to the blessing of the gifts, I love the words that the priest used to say, and my heart rejoices when I hear the occasional priest that does say it out loud:

By the mingling of this water and wine, may we come to share in His Divinity, as He humbled Himself to share in our humanity

I could sit and ponder that one statement for hours sometimes.

God Bless you both and thanks again!

 

[Phil12123]

As the Gospel plainly says, Water is the Means that Christ uses to wash away our sins in His Blood.

Where does the Gospel say that?

**Romans 3:
21. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22. even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24. being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25. whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26. to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. **

**It is when a person repents and puts his faith in Christ and His Work of redemption at Calvary (His blood atonement or propitiation) that his sins are forgiven and washed away. That is when His blood becomes effective in the live of the new believer. “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:7) **

So, Phil is able to have a humble opinion, but the 2000 year old Church is not?!?

The only reason that my opinion is humble is that, except where it is only based on the clear words of Scripture (like Matt. 28:19), it is just my opinion, not a “Thus-saith-the-Lord”-kind-of declaration. On the other hand, the opinions stated by the Church are not given as its “opinion” but as dogma that must be accepted or you are not believing the truth. You can ignore what I say as opinion and express your own opinion, and I will not send you to hell because yours differs from mine. I don’t pronounce anathemas on anyone for disagreeing with my opinion.