I absolutely agree that we should be able to disagree on this point (and many others that are not clearly supported in scripture). I try to understand the “why” behind traditions and I think you’ve explained it well with the statement that Gods actions never need to be redone. We could get into a long, and enjoyable, discussion on why being circumcised is no longer required, why infant baptism was initiated in the first place and why that is counter by your statement that baptism isn’t a ticket into heaven (and infant baptism is the main cause of the conflict to begin with) and what baptism actually fulfills as it relates to salvation. But my old fingers would likely get very tired. Thanks for the conversation. You are doing great work for the Kingdom.
Good morning Cam (this is Mark, not Susan). Thanks for sharing. I’ve struggled a bit with the refusal to “re-baptize” but really struggled with the Remember your Baptism service which looks and feels exactly the same as a baptism service. The service you describe is a really beautiful and different method for a new believer to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. We call baptism as an outward sign of an inward change which is another way to describe that public confession of Jesus as Lord. I can respect the denial of a re-baptism for the purposes you related but it would be interesting to see the Biblical references for this stance.
The scripture passages about baptism don't really specifically address the question of re-baptism as clearly as we would like; that's why there is healthy disagreement about it among christians of good faith. There are household baptisms in the book of Acts (Acts 16:15; 18:8; 1 also Corinthians 1:16); there are also clear examples of adults believing in Jesus, repenting, and being baptized (such as at the end of Peter's sermon in Acts 2). Ultimately there is not a passage or story in scripture that definitely decides it--so it's more a matter of how the church has reflected on baptism theologically. So if you are taking a big picture view of the universal church, for most of its 2000 year history, infant baptism has been the acceptable and normal practice (which is never excluding adults being baptized and entering into the church who have not been baptized). I tend to think that going against the consensual tradition of the church requires a lot of biblical backing ("extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence," as Carl Sagan says when it comes to science), and the Bible just doesn't have a lot to work with on the specifics of how baptism should be done. I tend to view baptism as a very similar practice to circumcision, as a sign of being a part of the covenant people; baptism is a sign of being a part of the new covenant people, who have been made one in Jesus. That's kind of how I think it through, and that was always done before the child's age of consent. You did not consent to be among the covenant people, you simply were a part of it. But it's a matter where deeply faithful followers of Jesus can disagree, and can hopefully still work together toward the same kingdom.
Brilliant!
Thanks for reading!
I absolutely agree that we should be able to disagree on this point (and many others that are not clearly supported in scripture). I try to understand the “why” behind traditions and I think you’ve explained it well with the statement that Gods actions never need to be redone. We could get into a long, and enjoyable, discussion on why being circumcised is no longer required, why infant baptism was initiated in the first place and why that is counter by your statement that baptism isn’t a ticket into heaven (and infant baptism is the main cause of the conflict to begin with) and what baptism actually fulfills as it relates to salvation. But my old fingers would likely get very tired. Thanks for the conversation. You are doing great work for the Kingdom.
Good morning Cam (this is Mark, not Susan). Thanks for sharing. I’ve struggled a bit with the refusal to “re-baptize” but really struggled with the Remember your Baptism service which looks and feels exactly the same as a baptism service. The service you describe is a really beautiful and different method for a new believer to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. We call baptism as an outward sign of an inward change which is another way to describe that public confession of Jesus as Lord. I can respect the denial of a re-baptism for the purposes you related but it would be interesting to see the Biblical references for this stance.
The scripture passages about baptism don't really specifically address the question of re-baptism as clearly as we would like; that's why there is healthy disagreement about it among christians of good faith. There are household baptisms in the book of Acts (Acts 16:15; 18:8; 1 also Corinthians 1:16); there are also clear examples of adults believing in Jesus, repenting, and being baptized (such as at the end of Peter's sermon in Acts 2). Ultimately there is not a passage or story in scripture that definitely decides it--so it's more a matter of how the church has reflected on baptism theologically. So if you are taking a big picture view of the universal church, for most of its 2000 year history, infant baptism has been the acceptable and normal practice (which is never excluding adults being baptized and entering into the church who have not been baptized). I tend to think that going against the consensual tradition of the church requires a lot of biblical backing ("extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence," as Carl Sagan says when it comes to science), and the Bible just doesn't have a lot to work with on the specifics of how baptism should be done. I tend to view baptism as a very similar practice to circumcision, as a sign of being a part of the covenant people; baptism is a sign of being a part of the new covenant people, who have been made one in Jesus. That's kind of how I think it through, and that was always done before the child's age of consent. You did not consent to be among the covenant people, you simply were a part of it. But it's a matter where deeply faithful followers of Jesus can disagree, and can hopefully still work together toward the same kingdom.