I explained that this meant 'baptising babies' and foolishly said, "You know, the thing that Anglicans believe in and do!" I say 'foolish' because some of those Anglican clergy present indicated that they weren't paedobaptists by their muttering things about 'believer's baptism' being the Biblical model.
Now I know that I might be treading on a few sensibilities here but, as I understand it, the early Church practised paedobaptism and as I also understand it, this was the case from the earliest days of the Jewish sect that is Christianity. Reading the didache and taking references to the feeding of babies at the breast with regard to them receiving the Eucharist and adding many other bits of scribble which come together to make an interesting picture. A picture that places infant baptism into a position of greater worth, validity and orthodoxy than many of those who claim believer's baptism would ever assign.
Not only that, when considering the fact that the anabaptist position only came into focus in the early sixteenth century and the modern attitudes became hardened a couple of centuries later, I have to say that I think that the 'my baptism is more efficacious than yours' brigade (also known as anabaptist) might not only be a little wrong but might actually be acting contrary to the very book of writings that they claim to uphold.
Let's have a quick glimpse of Paul in Corinth (Acts 19):
"And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptised?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptised with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus."
So what would you like to take from this? As I understand it:
1. John the Baptist's baptism was that of repentance,
2. The only adequate baptism is that done in the name of Jesus,
3. There is but one baptism, we cannot be baptised again and again. It is a 'once for all-time act'
4. Assuming that any rebaptism is efficacious is to assume that we are enacting something greater than any previous baptism and yet, if this was done in the name of Jesus, this can not be anything other than a false assumption.
5. The only valid rebaptism indicated in the Bible is that where a person has been 'inadequately baptised' ie. NOT in the name of Jesus.
Draw your own conclusions - I await your responses- but am now in hiding ;-)
I get the feeling this topic is not quite finished (and I have a confession or two to make on the way).
Pax
4 comments:
many denominations have little theology and see the baptism as little more than a wet witness.
I look forward to you development of this subject.
Someone once said to me, "Whatever baptism policy you have will be wrong!" There is never a clear and easy answer as to who should be baptised when.In my own experience I have found that church members who know the Lord tend to want their children dedicated, whereas those who are outside the church want a full baptism. This all seems to be a very odd state of affairs.
Yes, well. It is strange that (mostly evangelical) Anglican churches not only have members but clergy too whose theology is anything but Anglican. We have those who would seem to be more at home in a congregational form of governance, and those like your colleagues who at heart have a Baptist theology (with a captial B - I hesitate to use the word Anabaptist since there are other connotations to this word). One sometimes wonders how they survived selection panels and theological training.
While it is difficult to find explicit reference to paedobaptism in the NT, the baptism of complete households suggests that this did take place even then. But, as you rightly point out, the practice is well attested in the immediate post-apostolic period in a way that suggests that it was clearly accepted practice from the earliest times.
I must admin that I had never heard of paedobaptism until your blog post.
But I can't see any baptism being valid unless in the name of Jesus Christ. Being baptised in the Spirit was Christ's choice, so it should be ours.
Don't know anything about anabaptists, but off to find out.
Post a Comment