[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Traditional Anglican

The Infant Baptism is rather interesting, it began early in Europe, it started because of the VERY high infant mortality rate at that time. It was so bad that in parts of Germany, parents would carve a name for the child on a piece of wood and often it would be kept in the Church it was "given" to the child after their first year, some were found not long ago near Stuttgart, in any event, the Church had to make a difficult judgement call, in light of these dire outlooks, what was decided was this (in a nutshell):Infants have no personal sins, they are however born with "original" sin. Thus to Baptize in the Trinitarian formula. Life was hard brutal and short in many areas where the faith was spreading, if the Plague did not get you one year a famine might the next. Frankly , I try not to be too hard on the Church when they decided to Baptize babies of Christian families, put yourself in their shoes, it was not an easy call, in order to maintain proper orthodox teaching of the faith, Confirmation was created, this was where the Pastor taught those old enough to grasp the basics, the Christian Faith, they would then, in Church, in the eyes of God and men confess Christ as Lord and Saviour. I am in a Branch of our Lord's Holy Church where this pattern was kept. Hence my sympathy for Infant Baptism followed by instruction and Confirmation. I feel both sides hold merit! For me, the issue is Christ, is he your Lord and Saviour? Do you put your faith in Him? Well, if so, by Faith you are saved. In summation I DEEPLY love my Brethren in the Lord on both sides of this issue, I never make it a point of division. I have seen people on both sides get UGLY on this one. To be honest I shout "It is all about faith in Christ Jesus the Lord!" Then I run away. Blessings.

I'm not sure when baptising infants started (that is i'm not certain atm), however I do know that it was and is completely unbiblical. I know that in 15-17th century Europe you were baptised into a state church and it meant that it was a part of being a citizen of that country. Some countries were Catholic and you joined that country through baptism which occured when you were an infant and could not make a conscious decision to recieve Jesus Christ. Others, because of the momentum following Martin Luther baptised infants into the Lutheran state church (diet-Catholics). Then, on January 21, 1525 Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, George Blaurock rebaptised themselves after being unsuccessful at persuading Ulrich Zwingli (who at one point was their mentor/teacher) that the practice of infant baptism was unscriptural, along with the very notion of a state church (these folks basically pioneered the concept of seperation of church and state). To make a long story short, thousands upon thousands of Anabaptists were martyred because they did not recognize infant baptism, nor the concept of a state church which they refused to participate in.

To me, the issue of infant baptism truly is an important doctrine to get right (which is why I've been troubled by the fact that I was sprinkled years ago). I cannot forget what I've read in the Martyr's Mirror (http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/contents.htm), nor do I want to. As Tertullian said "The blood of the martyr's is seed."

I have very close relations with the Conservative Mennonite. I can tell you this, which I find very sad. They don't practice Scriptural baptism. They baptise by pooring. I also know that they've baptised teenagers that I know don't show any real sign of being born again, and exibit all the signs of being pressured by their families. Perhaps this isn't a big deal to some people, but to me it is. I cannot forget, the night I got on my knees and surrendered to God. I had fought the very notion of God for so many years, but what I experienced that night I became a Christian and was saved by the grace of God will stick with me for the rest of my life (truly I was never the same after that day. Jesus was with me every day, even when I wasn't obedient). Perhaps it isn't this way with everyone, but if someone doesn't truly desire salvation then they should not be baptised. Clearly children cannot make this choice, and should not be baptised.

I guess I should leave it at that. I could talk about this all night.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[Traditional Anglican]

Originally Posted by stephanos

I'm not sure when baptising infants started (that is i'm not certain atm), however I do know that it was and is completely unbiblical. I know that in 15-17th century Europe you were baptised into a state church and it meant that it was a part of being a citizen of that country. Some countries were Catholic and you joined that country through baptism which occured when you were an infant and could not make a conscious decision to recieve Jesus Christ. Others, because of the momentum following Martin Luther baptised infants into the Lutheran state church (diet-Catholics). Then, on January 21, 1525 Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, George Blaurock rebaptised themselves after being unsuccessful at persuading Ulrich Zwingli (who at one point was their mentor/teacher) that the practice of infant baptism was unscriptural, along with the very notion of a state church (these folks basically pioneered the concept of seperation of church and state). To make a long story short, thousands upon thousands of Anabaptists were martyred because they did not recognize infant baptism, nor the concept of a state church which they refused to participate in.

To me, the issue of infant baptism truly is an important doctrine to get right (which is why I've been troubled by the fact that I was sprinkled years ago). I cannot forget what I've read in the Martyr's Mirror (http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/contents.htm), nor do I want to. As Tertullian said "The blood of the martyr's is seed."

I have very close relations with the Conservative Mennonite. I can tell you this, which I find very sad. They don't practice Scriptural baptism. They baptise by pooring. I also know that they've baptised teenagers that I know don't show any real sign of being born again, and exibit all the signs of being pressured by their families. Perhaps this isn't a big deal to some people, but to me it is. I cannot forget, the night I got on my knees and surrendered to God. I had fought the very notion of God for so many years, but what I experienced that night I became a Christian and was saved by the grace of God will stick with me for the rest of my life (truly I was never the same after that day. Jesus was with me every day, even when I wasn't obedient). Perhaps it isn't this way with everyone, but if someone doesn't truly desire salvation then they should not be baptised. Clearly children cannot make this choice, and should not be baptised.

I guess I should leave it at that. I could talk about this all night.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

My brother, I do not often take up this matter. Too be honest, I was reluctant to make that post in the knowledge that most members here are Baptist, and would not agree with my Churches position. To maintain unity and charity I shall refrain from Baptism debates. In my prior post on this thread I gave a short history of the (why did it start) and why my Church and others still follow it. I shall ONLY say this, it is not an issue which pertains to Salvation, that is to say "Stephen, were you saved when you embraced Christ Jesus as your Lord and Saviour? Or, did Salvation only take place in the element of water." I am not trying to "force your hand" on this issue. I WILL relate a horrid view of Baptism (for humor and break any tension) I worked with this girl who was hard-core Church of Christ, now I did not know about Baptisml Regeneration at that point I was a new Christian talking to ANYONE who I though was a Christian, so anyway I was talking to ***** one day and she told me about the CoC position, I thought about it, and said "*****, if someone accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and and Saviour, and embrace ALL the fundamentals of the faith, say they decide to be Baptized on that Sunday, lets say they are on their way to the Church, filled with love for the Lord and their newfound faith, and a a car weaves into the wrong lane and kills the poor guy" With NO hesitation, she looked at me and said,"He goes to Hell, straight to Hell, period! The Baptism is the one thing that makes a Christian." Their is a Scary Christian "Halloween" story! Brrr. Still makes me shudder! (in fairness NOT all CoC folk take such an "extreme position." For my VERY last post on Baptism I simply say this we are under Grace not Law, in issues such as forms and modes of Baptism, I tend to avoid using terms like heretical or wrong, or whatever. I feel thins like the mode is a matter of person conscience. That is only my humble opinion on the matter. Blessings.

[Forrest]

Brother TA. I really appreciate your desire to maintain peace and love with the fellow believers. I would ask you to consider the importance of this doctrine by rightly dividing the word of truth, however, as it relates to the believer. Many have shared why they believe it is important as well as the proper method. Here are some additional scriptures for you to prayerfully consider.

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Baptism is important because Jesus commanded us to do it.

Baptism is important because it is a visible and public proclamation that you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection for the forgiveness of your sins.

Since Jesus gave baptism importance, don't you agree we should too?

[Traditional Anglican]

Originally Posted by Forrest

Brother TA. I really appreciate your desire to maintain peace and love with the fellow believers. I would ask you to consider the importance of this doctrine by rightly dividing the word of truth, however, as it relates to the believer. Many have shared why they believe it is important as well as the proper method. Here are some additional scriptures for you to prayerfully consider.

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Baptism is important because Jesus commanded us to do it.

Baptism is important because it is a visible and public proclamation that you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection for your sins.

Since Jesus gave baptism importance, don't you agree we should too?

OK, I will give a last last post, it was a good question, YES! I think it is an important Sacrament! Totally! I think I was simply trying to avoid conflict over the modes and forms! Not the act. Baptism is an important Rite in the Christian walk! So yes, we agree my friend! Like I said, since I am Anglican in a Forum made mostly of Baptist brothers and sisters. I do not wish my views, or those of my Church to cause tension, conflict, and needless head-butting. It's just not worth it when I agree with you on 99.999% of the nitty-gritty basics about "What is a Christian?" Grace and Peace to you.

Originally Posted by stephanos

This is a personal question, but because it is also a doctrinal issue I thought this would be the place to post the question.

When I was 'baptised' years ago, I was sprinkled in a presbyterian church (as an adult). Now I know that baptism doesn't save us, but I've also heard people mention that our soul is separated from the flesh in baptism etc. My question is this; if you were me, would you want to be rebaptised by immersion? Perhaps I'm making a deal about it, but it's been on my mind a lot lately and I really need to find some rest from the concerns I have.

In fact, dear brother, I was like you, and I did get baptized by immersion (It's not a "re-baptism" if you weren't immersed in the first place). But my circumstances were a little different. When I was saved, I joined an independent, very evangelistic Presbyterian Church. Later, I moved to another church that was just as evangelistic, but aligned with a brand-new "conservative" denomination. (Note to Traditional Anglican: the new one was the PCA, but I had many friends who were OP and RP, too. There are as many kinds of Presbyterians as there are of Baptists!) Anyway, I was baptized by sprinkling, as a new Christian, at age 19. This was understood to be no more and no less than my adult profession of faith. I remained in the Presbyterian church, and two of my four children were "baptized" as infants. I kinda regret this, but I was going by the light that I had: I didn't find the King James Bible for 13 years, and I had bought - - - against my better judgment - - - the Reformed arguments in favor of infant baptism. (But I never did buy the "child of the Covenant" stuff.) Anyway, that was then, and this is now.

When I went to PBI, to study for the ministry, I asked Ruckman exactly the question that you've asked here. He said that, in my case, since I understood what my baptism represented, it wouldn't be necessary to baptize me again. But, since I was planning to be a Baptist pastor, he strongly suggested that I do it, for appearances' sake. So, Ruckman baptized me by immersion. I think it was the right thing to do.

In your situation, I would advise you to follow the Spirit's guidance. If you're not planning to be a Baptist preacher, you probably don't need to do it; but, if you're troubled, or if the Spirit is prompting you, then yes, by all means go ahead!

Whatever you do, brother, be at peace with your decision, and don't let the Enemy use this to accuse you or make you feel guilty. As you go down under the water - - - because I have a hunch that's what you'll end up doing - - - just remember, the issue isn't what Stephen is doing for Jesus, it's what Jesus Christ did for Stephen!

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Vendetta Ride

In fact, dear brother, I was like you, and I did get baptized by immersion (It's not a "re-baptism" if you weren't immersed in the first place). But my circumstances were a little different. When I was saved, I joined an independent, very evangelistic Presbyterian Church. Later, I moved to another church that was just as evangelistic, but aligned with a brand-new "conservative" denomination. (Note to Traditional Anglican: the new one was the PCA, but I had many friends who were OP and RP, too. There are as many kinds of Presbyterians as there are of Baptists!) Anyway, I was baptized by sprinkling, as a new Christian, at age 19. This was understood to be no more and no less than my adult profession of faith. I remained in the Presbyterian church, and two of my four children were "baptized" as infants. I kinda regret this, but I was going by the light that I had: I didn't find the King James Bible for 13 years, and I had bought - - - against my better judgment - - - the Reformed arguments in favor of infant baptism. (But I never did buy the "child of the Covenant" stuff.) Anyway, that was then, and this is now.

When I went to PBI, to study for the ministry, I asked Ruckman exactly the question that you've asked here. He said that, in my case, since I understood what my baptism represented, it wouldn't be necessary to baptize me again. But, since I was planning to be a Baptist pastor, he strongly suggested that I do it, for appearances' sake. So, Ruckman baptized me by immersion. I think it was the right thing to do.

In your situation, I would advise you to follow the Spirit's guidance. If you're not planning to be a Baptist preacher, you probably don't need to do it; but, if you're troubled, or if the Spirit is prompting you, then yes, by all means go ahead!

Whatever you do, brother, be at peace with your decision, and don't let the Enemy use this to accuse you or make you feel guilty. As you go down under the water - - - because I have a hunch that's what you'll end up doing - - - just remember, the issue isn't what Stephen is doing for Jesus, it's what Jesus Christ did for Stephen!

AMEN brother! Thank you for this. I sure appreciate the kind words and wise council.

Much Love in Christ Jesus,
Stephen

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Traditional Anglican

My brother, I do not often take up this matter. Too be honest, I was reluctant to make that post in the knowledge that most members here are Baptist, and would not agree with my Churches position. To maintain unity and charity I shall refrain from Baptism debates. In my prior post on this thread I gave a short history of the (why did it start) and why my Church and others still follow it. I shall ONLY say this, it is not an issue which pertains to Salvation, that is to say "Stephen, were you saved when you embraced Christ Jesus as your Lord and Saviour? Or, did Salvation only take place in the element of water." I am not trying to "force your hand" on this issue. I WILL relate a horrid view of Baptism (for humor and break any tension) I worked with this girl who was hard-core Church of Christ, now I did not know about Baptisml Regeneration at that point I was a new Christian talking to ANYONE who I though was a Christian, so anyway I was talking to ***** one day and she told me about the CoC position, I thought about it, and said "*****, if someone accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and and Saviour, and embrace ALL the fundamentals of the faith, say they decide to be Baptized on that Sunday, lets say they are on their way to the Church, filled with love for the Lord and their newfound faith, and a a car weaves into the wrong lane and kills the poor guy" With NO hesitation, she looked at me and said,"He goes to Hell, straight to Hell, period! The Baptism is the one thing that makes a Christian." Their is a Scary Christian "Halloween" story! Brrr. Still makes me shudder! (in fairness NOT all CoC folk take such an "extreme position." For my VERY last post on Baptism I simply say this we are under Grace not Law, in issues such as forms and modes of Baptism, I tend to avoid using terms like heretical or wrong, or whatever. I feel thins like the mode is a matter of person conscience. That is only my humble opinion on the matter. Blessings.

I think it is important for us Christians to be in line with God's Word, especially on this doctrine since it is a point of contention between fellow believers. I personally recognize that baptism doesn't save, and it really makes me furious that those Cambellites say it does (they are basically saying that we must do a work to be saved).

So anywho, I understand TA that you want to maintain peace on the forums. I DO TO! But I believe that we can discuss this without getting into a heated debate, as long as we all agree to use the Word of God to define this part of our faith, and not some outside source like history or church tradition to define it.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

I have been baptized by immersion on umm...three...different occasions. But in the first two, all I did was get wet. In the last one I pretty much just got wet too, but it was a symbol of identifying with Christ when I was baptized easter Sunday of this year.

[Traditional Anglican]

Originally Posted by stephanos

I think it is important for us Christians to be in line with God's Word, especially on this doctrine since it is a point of contention between fellow believers. I personally recognize that baptism doesn't save, and it really makes me furious that those Cambellites say it does (they are basically saying that we must do a work to be saved).

So anywho, I understand TA that you want to maintain peace on the forums. I DO TO! But I believe that we can discuss this without getting into a heated debate, as long as we all agree to use the Word of God to define this part of our faith, and not some outside source like history or church tradition to define it.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Well......here is how I can keep Peace with my beloved Baptist Brethren..........I WAS Baptized as an infant in the Anglican manner, BUT, I took Pilgrimage to the Holy Land as an adult...I was immersed in the Jordan River! Happy Happy Happy! Lol. See, we can all be friends, I have been sprinkled, and dunked! Man I got ALL the bases covered!

Here's a Presbyterian joke, which I post simply to give TA a smile:

A Baptist pastor and a Presbyterian pastor were discussing the matter. The Presbyterian said, "Would it be okay if I just went into the water, up to my waist?" The Baptist said, "No, that wouldn't be okay." The Presbyterian said, "Then, could I just go down until the water came up to my eyes?" The Baptist replied, "No, you need to go all the way." The Presbyterian happily responded, "See? I knew that the forehead was the only part that really mattered!"

Here is one of my other favorite jokes. Two old Southern boys were sitting on the porch, talking about various things, when one said, "Say, buddy, do you believe in infant baptism?"

"Believe in it?" replied his friend, "Why, man, I've seen it done!"