Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Proper baptism (Was open communion) Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 90 10:04:12 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services Lines: 69 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Our Longsuffering Moderator writes: >Otherwise we're going to have to start refusing to accept Baptist >baptisms. I think the Baptists are making a big mistake in rejecting >the one area where we still have unity in the Church, but I don't >propose to make things worse by putting up the wall from my side too. > >--clh] Hmm. A couple of points here. First, to say "The Baptists say " is pretty misleading. There is no central Baptist dogma-making body, no Baptist creed, no Baptist Internal Affairs police to check on you to make sure you're teaching "Baptist Theology". (The Southern Baptist Convention seems to *want* this role, but that's another story...). Baptists are a loose collection of independent congregations, and when I say independent, I mean it with a vengeance. The two traditional focal points of belief for Baptists (that is, the ones that tend to make them want to share a label) are (1) believer's baptism by immersion, and (2) priesthood of the believer (not necessarily in that order). Priesthood of the believer means that each individual believer is free (and competent) to interpret the Scriptures for herself, and requires no intermediary (other than Christ) in dealing with God. An immediate consequence of this is the impossibility of having a central body of doctrine/dogma which all Baptists must share. This extends to the idea of baptism. The Baptist churches I grew up in all practiced adult baptism by immersion. I don't want to get into all the arguments against infant baptism, but I suppose it's possible that Baptists see baptism as meaning something different from other denominations' interpretation. Certainly, anyone who would baptise a baby can't mean what the congregations I have been in mean by it. So, to this extent, perhaps we shouldn't expect Baptists to accept other forms. However, the fact is that most Baptist congregations I have seen will accept members of other denominations as members without re-baptism. So generalizations are a bit slippery here. I'm curious to know: what are the interpretations of baptism by various groups? Does the act qua act have spiritual significance, without reference to the beliefs of the participant? Is the physical display necessary, or can it be an "internal" thing? Is water necessary? Any liquid? Who can perform a baptism? Why? So many questions... -- David M. Tate | "The logarithms of 1,2,...,10 to base 10^(1/40) dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | are conveniently close to whole numbers, which | when you think about it, is why there are 12 "A Man for all Seasonings" | semitones in an octave." -- I. J. Good. [verrryyyyy interesting. Has anyone else seen Baptist congregations accept people as members who have not been baptized as adults by immersion? In previous discussions about baptism, we've seen a variety of different things that it symbolizes for different people. Among other things, it marks the entrance into the Christian fellowship, it makes visible God's call to us to, it symbolizes our participation in Christ's death, and it formalizes our acceptance of God's call. Traditions that consider infant baptism inappropriate are emphasizing aspects of the tradition based on a reasoned response. Those who consider it appropriate are emphasizing baptism as a mark of entrance into the covenant people, and God's call to us. They may also be implying that people respond to God no matter what their age, and that there are responses other than mature, intellectual faith which are appropriate for younger people. I would prefer to think of these as different emphases within a common tradition, rather than completely separate sacraments. --clh]