Quaker babtism

  • Thread starter Thread starter IneedGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you absolutely certain it was in a Quaker meeting-house? I know that there are various types of Quakers, but according to all the Quaker websites I’ve followed up through google. Quakers don’t have sacraments, including baptism, as the individual is enlightened direct, not through clergy or leaders.
That is what I thought too, but apparently there were/are different branches and they have differences in beliefs. I find it odd though that, if Quakers do not baptize, why are they on a list of churches with invalid baptisms? So apparently some of them must get baptized. Since I haven’t been able to find any specific beliefs concerning baptism among Quacker’s, it is difficult to make a determination on this.

On the surface, it does sound valid, but to be sure a parish priest should be consulted.
 
That is what I thought too, but apparently there were/are different branches and they have differences in beliefs. I find it odd though that, if Quakers do not baptize, why are they on a list of churches with invalid baptisms? So apparently some of them must get baptized. Since I haven’t been able to find any specific beliefs concerning baptism among Quacker’s, it is difficult to make a determination on this.
I was raised as an evangelical Quaker, and our typical line of thought could best be summarized by Elton Trueblood, a 20th century Quaker author and theologian, who said (I’m paraphrasing here) that if an inward conversion had taken place, no outward form (e.g. physical sacrament) was necessary, and if it had not, no outward form would suffice. So we could have been baptized with water if we wanted, but it wasn’t necessary or efficacious in any way. And if we were baptized, I doubt much concern would have been given to the form/structure of it.

Here’s a good video to describe what I’m talking about: vimeo.com/39639850.

In my opinion, it’s the logical conclusion of the idea that sacraments are only symbols. It reminds me of Flannery O’Connor’s quip that if it’s just a symbol, then to hell with it. Well, the Quakers basically said to hell with it, lol.

But you’re right–you’ll find a wide variety of opinion, especially since Quakers are not bound collectively by any creeds or statements of faith. Some of my Quaker family thought it was pretty cool that I would be baptized into the Catholic faith, while others were (and still are) horrified. This is only one out of several examples that could be shown that Quakerism is very hodge-podge, very amorphous. And many of them tend to see that as a virtue. 🤷
 
It was “Friends” church. Yes it was Quaker. My husband may have ask for the babtism. We were immersed.

Not to bash them they are wonderful people but we left not long after that partly due to a Magic show that was put on in the sanctuary for the kids.
I sadly have a mixed up background.
 
I was babtized in a Quaker church years ago.
I know it may not be the norm to accept it as valid but when my DH and I were babtized there it WAS done in the name of the father the son and the holy spirit.

So why would that not be valid?
Hello,

As others have noted, a valid baptism requires water, the Trinitarian formula pronounced by the minister, and a proper intention. In your case, the point at issue would be the intention. What did the minister intend when he baptized you? You might be able to answer that by stating what you intended since, I would think, you and your minister would have had an agreement as to what baptism means.

You will indeed see Quaker baptism on lists of baptisms that are not considered valid in the Catholic Church. I suspect that this results from the expressed views of Quakers, such as this:

“We would express our continued conviction that our Lord appointed no outward rite or ceremony for observance in His church. We accept every command of our Lord in what we believe to be its genuine import, as absolutely conclusive. The question of the use of outward ordinances is with us a question, not as to the authority of Christ, but as to his real meaning. We reverently believe that, as there is one Lord and one faith, so there is, under the Christian dispensation, but one baptism, (Eph 4:4,5) even that whereby all believers are baptized in the one Spirit into the one body. (1 Cor 12:13 RV) This is not an outward baptism with water, but a spiritual experience; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, (1 Pet 3:21) but that inward work which, by transforming the heart and settling the soul upon Christ, brings forth the answer of a good conscience towards God, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the experience of His love and power, as the risen and ascended Savior. No baptism in outward water can satisfy the description of the apostle, of being buried with Christ by baptism unto death. (Rom 6:4) It is with the Spirit alone that any can thus be baptized. In this experience the announcement of the Forerunner of our Lord is fulfilled, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” (Matt 3:11) In this view we accept the commission of our blessed Lord as given in Matthew 28:18, 19 and 20th verses: “And Jesus came to them and spake unto them saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you, and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (RV) This commission, as we believe, was not designed to set up a new ritual under the new covenant, or to connect the initiation into a membership, in its nature essentially spiritual, with a mere ceremony of a typical character. Otherwise it was not possible for the Apostle Paul, who was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostle, (2 Cor 11:5) to have disclaimed that which would, in that case, have been of the essence of his commission when he wrote, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.” (1 Cor 1:17) Whenever an external ceremony is commanded, the particulars, the mode and incidents of that ceremony, become of its essence. There is an utter absence of these particulars in the text before us. Which confirms our persuasion that the commission must be construed in connection with the spiritual power which the risen Lord promised should attend the witness of his apostles and of the church to Him, and which, after Pentecost, so mightily accompanied their ministry of the word and prayer, that those to whom they were sent were introduced into an experience wherein they had a saving knowledge of, and living fellowship with, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” quakerinfo.com/rdf.shtml

This “presumption of invalidity” could be overturned in your particular case, if you could establish that your minister had an intention that was in accord with Catholic/Christian tradition regarding the nature and effects of water baptism.

I hope this makes sense to you.

Dan
 
It was “Friends” church. Yes it was Quaker. My husband may have ask for the babtism. We were immersed.

Not to bash them they are wonderful people but we left not long after that partly due to a Magic show that was put on in the sanctuary for the kids.
I sadly have a mixed up background.
That’s another strange thing. Quaker Meeting-Houses don’t have sanctuaries, surely, since there are no ceremonies and certainly no need for an altar.
 
That’s another strange thing. Quaker Meeting-Houses don’t have sanctuaries, surely, since there are no ceremonies and certainly no need for an altar.
Perhaps I worded it wrong. Lets just say the area where the preacher preaches and where the pews are.
 
Perhaps I worded it wrong. Lets just say the area where the preacher preaches and where the pews are.
Must be a programmed meeting. Mine was the same, including an altar (which served no purpose except to hold the offering plates).
 
I was raised as an evangelical Quaker, and our typical line of thought could best be summarized by Elton Trueblood, a 20th century Quaker author and theologian, who said (I’m paraphrasing here) that if an inward conversion had taken place, no outward form (e.g. physical sacrament) was necessary, and if it had not, no outward form would suffice. So we could have been baptized with water if we wanted, but it wasn’t necessary or efficacious in any way. And if we were baptized, I doubt much concern would have been given to the form/structure of it.

Here’s a good video to describe what I’m talking about: vimeo.com/39639850.

In my opinion, it’s the logical conclusion of the idea that sacraments are only symbols. It reminds me of Flannery O’Connor’s quip that if it’s just a symbol, then to hell with it. Well, the Quakers basically said to hell with it, lol.

But you’re right–you’ll find a wide variety of opinion, especially since Quakers are not bound collectively by any creeds or statements of faith. Some of my Quaker family thought it was pretty cool that I would be baptized into the Catholic faith, while others were (and still are) horrified. This is only one out of several examples that could be shown that Quakerism is very hodge-podge, very amorphous. And many of them tend to see that as a virtue. 🤷
Thank you for providing this information :)…very helpful!
 
Are you absolutely certain it was in a Quaker meeting-house? I know that there are various types of Quakers, but according to all the Quaker websites I’ve followed up through google. Quakers don’t have sacraments, including baptism, as the individual is enlightened direct, not through clergy or leaders.
Most Friends do not practice the outward ritual ordinances. It is not forbidden…it’s just not necessary.

With the influence of evangelical Christianity upon Quakerism in the 19th century and the influx of Evangelicals into Monthly Meetings for Worship, some Yearly Meetings among the Evangelical Friends International will practice water baptims and Lord’s Supper if there are members of the meeting that wish to undergo the ritual.

As long as the canidate understands that the “inward baptism” is the necessary baptism, some Evangelical Friends will perform them…since “form” isn’t an issue since it’s a “ritual” with no salvic grace, sprinkling, pouring or immersion is the choice of the canidate.
 
Wow, there are cerainly a lo of differences in churches.
We were not ask about being sprinkled, poured or immersed.

The babtism took place at an indoor swimming pool, Idk about THAT but I do believe the minister had only good intentions.
 
The word Baptisim ( Βάπτισμα ) means to wash so its rather obvious that water has to be used.
I personally see all Christians as my brothers baptised or not. 🙂
The baptized are members of Christ’s Body. The unbaptized are fans. An awful lot of scripture is being ignored by those who teach that baptism is “no longer necessary.” For those Romans 3:28 isolationists among us, I ask: what was the first thing that Paul sought once the scales fell from his eyes? It was neither food nor drink.
 
For what it’s worth, I too saw a list in Catholic materials, and Quaker baptism was NOT considered valid.
 
An awful lot of scripture is being ignored by those who teach that baptism is “no longer necessary.” For those Romans 3:28 isolationists among us, I ask: what was the first thing that Paul sought once the scales fell from his eyes? It was neither food nor drink.
There are lots of good passages that could be quoted, but the bottom line is that this is just one more example of why sola scriptura doesn’t work. Everyone views Scripture through a lens, and this happens to be the Quaker one.
 
The word Baptisim ( Βάπτισμα ) means to wash so its rather obvious that water has to be used.
I personally see all Christians as my brothers baptised or not. 🙂
He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mark 16:16
 
There are lots of good passages that could be quoted, but the bottom line is that this is just one more example of why sola scriptura doesn’t work. Everyone views Scripture through a lens, and this happens to be the Quaker one.
The Quaker lens has become so foggy that it seems like everyone now looks like a Christian (whatever that is). When all you have is the bible - and only 90% of it at that, I would hope that you actually follow it. Claiming to be a Christian should include keeping His instructions or commands to the faithful, one would think. Mark16:16 records our Lord as teaching “He who believes and is baptized, will be saved” The ignorant and unstable (2 Peter 3:16) have managed to finesse this into “just believe and you are saved.” I would not want to sit in their seat at the judgment (James 3:1) . Ah, but many antichrists had gone out into the world 2,000 years ago. How many more surround and influence us today?
 
The Quaker lens has become so foggy that it seems like everyone now looks like a Christian (whatever that is). When all you have is the bible - and only 90% of it at that, I would hope that you actually follow it. Claiming to be a Christian should include keeping His instructions or commands to the faithful, one would think. Mark16:16 records our Lord as teaching “He who believes and is baptized, will be saved” The ignorant and unstable (2 Peter 3:16) have managed to finesse this into “just believe and you are saved.” I would not want to sit in their seat at the judgment (James 3:1) . Ah, but many antichrists had gone out into the world 2,000 years ago. How many more surround and influence us today?
The Good News is…you won’t have to sit in anyone’s seat but yours…“I know whom I have beleived and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day.”

We’re in Good Hands.
 
The Good News is…you won’t have to sit in anyone’s seat but yours…“I know whom I have beleived and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day.”

We’re in Good Hands.
You have said so.
 
He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mark 16:16
This is one of those verses that Catholics and Protestants frequently bash each other over the head with.:slapfight: While it is painfully obvious that one needs to believe in Christ in order to be saved by him.The question of baptism is not as obvious* as it first might appear. In order to accept Christ we must be at a age or period of understanding in our lives. Usually " one age fits all " in the case of Conformation in the Church of England/Rome or Bar and Bat Mitzvah in the Messianic Church and communion at the discerning of your own soul in the Presbyterian Church.
Children and those of low mental age are in my own humble opinion saved regardless of whether they are baptised or not.
  • note that it says…but he that believeth not shall be damned…and not…but he that is not baptised shall be damned.
 
This is one of those verses that Catholics and Protestants frequently bash each other over the head with.:slapfight: While it is painfully obvious that one needs to believe in Christ in order to be saved by him.The question of baptism is not as obvious* as it first might appear. In order to accept Christ we must be at a age or period of understanding in our lives. Usually " one age fits all " in the case of Conformation in the Church of England/Rome or Bar and Bat Mitzvah in the Messianic Church and communion at the discerning of your own soul in the Presbyterian Church.
Children and those of low mental age are in my own humble opinion saved regardless of whether they are baptised or not.
  • note that it says…but he that believeth not shall be damned…and not…but he that is not baptised shall be damned.
The first thing that Paul sought after the scales fell from his eyes was… Baptism (Acts 9:18). Are we spiritually superior to Paul? The 3,000 on Pentecost: repentance and baptism (Acts 2:41). Those gentiles who received the Holy Spirit as Peter evangelized them: baptism (Acts 10:44-48). Again, we disregard the explicit instruction of Jesus (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16) at our own peril. How much scripture and Christian practice are we willing to deny for the sake of a denominational loyalty?

As a practical matter, since there is nothing in scripture to indicate that baptism condemns you, and all evidence indicates that it saves you, why on earth would a Christian not want to receive it? Why have certain men in recent times taught against baptism’s necessity?

As to the “believer’s baptism”, why did Jesus heal the paralytic because of the faith of his friends (Mark 2:3-5)? Your faith can produce physical healing for a friend. Are you saying that your faith cannot produce spiritual healing for a friend?
 
The first thing that Paul sought after the scales fell from his eyes was… Baptism (Acts 9:18). Are we spiritually superior to Paul? The 3,000 on Pentecost: repentance and baptism (Acts 2:41). Those gentiles who received the Holy Spirit as Peter evangelized them: baptism (Acts 10:44-48). Again, we disregard the explicit instruction of Jesus (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16) at our own peril. How much scripture and Christian practice are we willing to deny for the sake of a denominational loyalty?

As a practical matter, since there is nothing in scripture to indicate that baptism condemns you, and all evidence indicates that it saves you, why on earth would a Christian not want to receive it? Why have certain men in recent times taught against baptism’s necessity?

As to the “believer’s baptism”, why did Jesus heal the paralytic because of the faith of his friends (Mark 2:3-5)? Your faith can produce physical healing for a friend. Are you saying that your faith cannot produce spiritual healing for a friend?
Hello Pro18Guy,
first let me clarify;I am not denying the significance of baptism. It is a required sacrament, of that there can be no denying. As for denominational loyalty I can tell you that my only loyalty is with the Lord. Ones denomination is largely a matter of geography, parents and circumstance! On this site I am always mindful of quoting scripture as you have because I like many others frequently receive the Sola Scriptura insult. That said when baptism is mentioned in the Good Book it is always in assosiation with adults and never infants!

Your Presbyterian Brother in Christ,
Richard.:shamrock2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top