Infant Baptism: A Poll

[Charles W Christian]

I know that the theology concerning baptismal practice has been discussed quite a bit on Naznet. So, I'm just wondering: since technically we as Nazarenes (drawing from our deeper Wesleyan heritage) do practice infant baptism as well as believer's baptism, how many of us have ever performed and/or witnessed an actual infant baptism (not simply a dedication) in a Nazarene church. Feel free to offer any thoughts on the matter as well.

Thanks!

Charles

[Charles W Christian]

By the way, in 16 years of ministry (13 of them as an ordained minister), I have actually only performed one infant baptism. This is probably because my early ministry was in the South (many Naz churches heavily influenced in practice by Southern Baptist traditions that do not practice infant baptism) and in small town NW US (many Naz churches heavily influenced by groups that generally do not practice infant baptism)....

The infant baptism I performed was here in Seattle (I've been here since June 2004), and it was for a couple who was raised Lutheran and were both baptized as infants. They became part of the Church of the Nazarene here and when their baby was born, they wanted her baptized.

Thanks,
Charles

[Dennis M. Scott]

In thirty pus years of ministry, my guess is that it has run about 50-50. It does give a great opportunity to discuss what baptism signifies and does, and what dedication signifies and does.

As for my own three children, our second was baptized, our third was dedicated, and our first we asked the pastor to dedicate. He took a rose, dipped it in water, sprinkled the child, and then called it dedication, explaining that "we don't believe in infant baptism." I still love the pastor, but when you use water, it's a baptism, regardless of what you call it or believe.

The anabaptist influence seemed to have been stronger in the Midwest than here in the East now, but times may have changed, too. In a more sophisticated poll, it would be interesting to note opinions by geography.

[Ryan Scott]

For the purposes of this poll, am I clergy or not? I've never held any position that would give me the opportunity to perform an infant baptism, but technically I am clergy.

[Glenda Harvey]

I grew up in the Nazarene Church and attended there until I was 24. Many of my family are still Nazarenes and I have never seen an infant baptism in a Nazarene Church. I didn't even realize until I began participating in various boards such as this one that infant baptism is allowed in the Nazarene Church.

[Mike Schutz]

In our context it is about 75% dedication to 25% baptism - and it almost always depends on the heritage of the couple.

I do have at least one person in our congregation - a young person - who leaves the service when an infant baptism is performed.

[Susan Unger]

I know that the theology concerning baptismal practice has been discussed quite a bit on Naznet. So, I'm just wondering: since technically we as Nazarenes (drawing from our deeper Wesleyan heritage) do practice infant baptism as well as believer's baptism, how many of us have ever performed and/or witnessed an actual infant baptism (not simply a dedication) in a Nazarene church. Feel free to offer any thoughts on the matter as well.

Thanks!

Charles

I was baptized as an infant. My mother says that it was due to her EUB background.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I am clergy and my three sixth-generation Nazarene children were baptized as infants. So I'm not sure that heritage means much in terms of tradition in this topic these days - I have many peers (Nazarenes) who've made the same decision.

(At the baptisms of my own children, I played the role of father. :basic01)

Here is a post on my blog about it:
http://www.jeremydscott.com/2007/06/infant-baptism.html

If you don't read the blog post, at least know that I don't hold infant baptism as prescription for anyone, but I will encourage parents in my community to consider it.

[Greg Farra]

I'm a local minister, so I guess I'm semi-clergy. Coming from a Lutheran background, my wife and kids were sprinkled as babies (I was sprinkled as an adult). We're still debating the issue at our church. I gave Jarrod my copy of 'Outward Sign, Inward Grace' by Rob Staples (I hope I remembered the title correct). I'm in favor of infant baptism myself. We have not had too many babies born in our congregation. The last time we did the baby was dedicated. We don't have a baptismal tank, so we could possibly use a pool or go to a lake and do immersions.

[Mike Schutz]

[QUOTE=Jeremy D. Scott;199362]I am clergy and my three sixth-generation Nazarene children were baptized as infants. So I'm not sure that heritage means much in terms of tradition in this topic these days - I have many peers (Nazarenes) who've made the same decision.


In our community "heritage" doesn't mean Nazarene, except that those who are second generation CotN in our congregation (none longer) had not seen infant baptism until I arrived.

In our context, those from Roman Catholic backgrounds want baptism, and those from Anabaptist families are really uncomfortable with it.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

I'm a local minister, so I guess I'm semi-clergy. Coming from a Lutheran background, my wife and kids were sprinkled as babies (I was sprinkled as an adult). We're still debating the issue at our church. I gave Jarrod my copy of 'Outward Sign, Inward Grace' by Rob Staples (I hope I remembered the title correct). I'm in favor of infant baptism myself. We have not had too many babies born in our congregation. The last time we did the baby was dedicated. We don't have a baptismal tank, so we could possibly use a pool or go to a lake and do immersions.

I can identify with you. I also came from a Lutheran background and was sprinkled. The Pastor was Pastor Long. He is a tall man. Interestingly, I was in Guyana in 2003 and heard he was there also. We met again for the first time after 25 years.

[David Parker]

I grew up in the Nazarene Church and attended there until I was 24. Many of my family are still Nazarenes and I have never seen an infant baptism in a Nazarene Church. I didn't even realize until I began participating in various boards such as this one that infant baptism is allowed in the Nazarene Church.

Same here. Those words could have been mine, except I only attended till age 19.

I have read that Catholics believe that infant baptism removes original sin. Do those Nazarenes that baptize infants believe the same, or is it a symbolic act?

[Dennis M. Scott]

Same here. Those words could have been mine, except I only attended till age 19.

I have read that Catholics believe that infant baptism removes original sin. Do those Nazarenes that baptize infants believe the same, or is it a symbolic act?


I can't answer for all Nazarenes who baptize babies, or for Roman Catholics. It sometimes is confusing for Wesleyans to discuss oriignal sin in the same arena with the Roman Catholic concept, because the two are so dissimilar. I don't know of any Nazarenes who think that original sin is removed in either adult or infant baptism. Most of those Nazarenes who have thought much about it and practice it say they see it as a sacrament of grace practiced by the first century church, and struggle with the thought of witholding any means of grace, especially from infants. Interestingly, many of them hold that the later developed dedication of infants also contains mystery and likely is a means of grace: it just doesn't have clear first century precedent. Curiously, many of those same people will quickly concede that many things the first century church did have not required a continued practice. Neither am I aware of any who see it exclusively as symbolic, but that might be the case.

[Ryan Scott]

I guess I can't speak for everyone either, but I view infant baptism as an affirmation that God has already done everything that needs to be done for this child to be in right relationship with God. This child is a part of the Church and only walking away from that identity will change anything.

[Bruce Carriker]

Charles,

Is this about our experience, or our beliefs? The questions sort of mix those two together. For me, there needs to be an answer that is not available:

I am clergy and have not performed an infant baptism, but would do so if asked.

[Charles W Christian]

Charles,

Is this about our experience, or our beliefs? The questions sort of mix those two together. For me, there needs to be an answer that is not available:

I am clergy and have not performed an infant baptism, but would do so if asked.

I'm just checking to see if our beliefs match our experience. I assume that most of us believe in infant baptism if we're Nazarenes (I know not all do), but like many things, this issues seems to be one where we say we believe one thing but we don't always experience it as normative.

I think in some parts of the country, this same phenomenon happens with women in ministry, for instance. We technically believe in women clergy; however, some of my wome clergy friends have told me of churches, districts, and DS's who just won't seriously consider a woman for a senior pastor position. Sad....

Charles

[David Parker]

I'm just checking to see if our beliefs match our experience. I assume that most of us believe in infant baptism if we're Nazarenes (I know not all do), but like many things, this issues seems to be one where we say we believe one thing but we don't always experience it as normative.

I think in some parts of the country, this same phenomenon happens with women in ministry, for instance. We technically believe in women clergy; however, some of my wome clergy friends have told me of churches, districts, and DS's who just won't seriously consider a woman for a senior pastor position. Sad....

Charles

My humble observation is that there is a huge divide in belief and practice between the highly educated leadership and the average Nazarene church member. And also a huge divide between those churches in the close orbit of the Nazarene Universities and the more distant congregations.

As I've noted in another thread, one of the largest Nazarene churches in the U.S. has no mention of the name "Nazarene" any where on their signs or foyer, and no obvious mention on their (very nicely done) website either. Their 'beliefs' link on their website doesn't even mention sanctification or any second work of grace. And it describes baptism as only a believers baptism by immersion. It is, of course, far away from headquarters and any of the Universities. It is growing fast and has a powerful and effective ministry.

So I guess my point is that just because the Wesleyan heritage allows for something, doesn't make it real for those who don't minister from a strict Wesleyan perspective, even if they are 'Nazarene'.

[Susan Unger]

I assume that most of us believe in infant baptism if we're Nazarenes (I know not all do.

I didn't know that nazarenes believed in infant baptism. I guess I can chalk that one up to my strange church that I grew up in [legalistic and had lots of problems in it] and the fundie influence of the culture around me.

[Greg Farra]

Same here. Those words could have been mine, except I only attended till age 19.

I have read that Catholics believe that infant baptism removes original sin. Do those Nazarenes that baptize infants believe the same, or is it a symbolic act?

I'm no theologian, but I would think that the only way Nazarenes would believe that original sin is removed would be by Entire Sanctification. As far as the RC, I don't think they'd say baptism removes original sin in the same way we do by ES.

[Mike Schutz]

I didn't know that nazarenes believed in infant baptism. I guess I can chalk that one up to my strange church that I grew up in [legalistic and had lots of problems in it] and the fundie influence of the culture around me.

Just one of several fascinating bits of information you will learn when you take Systematic Theology with me. I know that you can't wait!:basic05

[Wayne Paul]

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about infant baptism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism).

The CotN is listed as practicing infant baptism and article's foot notes references this NPH document (http://www.nph.com/vcmedia/2369/2369939.pdf).

[Susan Unger]

Just one of several fascinating bits of information you will learn when you take Systematic Theology with me. I know that you can't wait!:basic05

My college buddy [who got a BA in Biblical Lit] will flip when I tell her that I actually am looking forward to it. Systematic Theology and Greek at 7:30 AM were the bane of her college existence. :fav17

[Susan Unger]

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about infant baptism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism).

The CotN is listed as practicing infant baptism and article's foot notes references this NPH document (http://www.nph.com/vcmedia/2369/2369939.pdf).

I looked over part of the nph document. I think I know why my childhood pastor never preached/taught a word about baptism - "The sacraments are mysterious". He and his wife tended to preach against anything mysterious, emotional or too "pentecostal". He did baptize people but I wonder now if it wasn't some kind of formality to him that didn't mean much. Anyways, I think that is why I am kind of wishy washy on the subject of baptism. Liturgically minded believers would have a heart attack if they knew just how wishy washy I am.

Edited to add: And then when I read this "Baptism is a sacrament where God gives grace in the midst of the action. Baptism is God’s means to give us grace to follow Him" I could really hear my former pastor flipping in his grave. He would be so appalled at such a "mysterious" emphasis of baptism. Be prepared, Mike. I have a feeling that more garbage is gonna come out of me in Systematic as God undoes more strange teaching from my crazy, messed up childhood church.

[David Parker]

As far as the RC, I don't think they'd say baptism removes original sin in the same way we do by ES.

Here (http://www.catholic.com/library/infant_baptism.asp) is what the Roman Catholics believe.

"Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons."

[Dennis M. Scott]

I looked over part of the nph document. I think I know why my childhood pastor never preached/taught a word about baptism - "The sacraments are mysterious". He and his wife tended to preach against anything mysterious, emotional or too "pentecostal". He did baptize people but I wonder now if it wasn't some kind of formality to him that didn't mean much. Anyways, I think that is why I am kind of wishy washy on the subject of baptism. Liturgically minded believers would have a heart attack if they knew just how wishy washy I am.

Edited to add: And then when I read this "Baptism is a sacrament where God gives grace in the midst of the action. Baptism is God’s means to give us grace to follow Him" I could really hear my former pastor flipping in his grave. He would be so appalled at such a "mysterious" emphasis of baptism. Be prepared, Mike. I have a feeling that more garbage is gonna come out of me in Systematic as God undoes more strange teaching from my crazy, messed up childhood church.

It might be assumed that a course in systematic theology would in part be intended to give order to one's understanding of things theological. It would be helpful for concepts about God to as much as possible not conflict, and especially "line up" with things about God the Bible reveals. Systematic theology will assist in giving order to concepts so they "fit" together. A different course, perhaps, would be Biblical Theology, which would consider primarily those things that are specifically (maybe even only) from the Bible text.

Regardless, it seems strange that a course intended to make things more clear would take us to a place where some concepts are labeled "mysterious", doesn't it? Most of us have what we now consider to be "inadequate" earlier experiences in the realm of teaching/learning. One would think that since what we heard/learned was so messed up, it's a miracle that God's grace got through to us at all! But somehow, it did - thank God! THAT, is part of the miracle: and it is a mystery. Seems like that might be part of the "foolishness of preaching" reference.

In my own background, I seem to recollect that the term "mystery" was probably put in the same category with "magic", and therefore unChristian. Even if it would ever have been something acceptable in a Christian context, it would have been put into that pile of phenomenon that were only for the first century church - a different "dispensation" than the present. Into that pile were thrown things like spiritual gifts, demons, sometimes even divine healing. If it was something outside the experience or understanding of whoever was talking - or preaching - it was said that it wasn't "for us." I suspect that to be part of the reason some in our movement insisted that the sacraments - of which we adamantly insist to be only two - were ONLY symbolic of something else that believers had actually EXPERIENCED - mainly, an emotional encounter with God in which they had been "saved." Unfortunately, even that experience had been whittled down to an almost mechanical formulated procedure that could not happen until the seeker had "done" some things, and taking the "mystery" out of it. No, mystery was not something included in one's Christian experience. Fortunately, even in those days we gave lip service to continual learning, believing one could understand things better by-and-by even in this life. So my understanding eventually came to accept things I couldn't exactly explain, or even comprehend.

Just because something is not within my realm of experience, understanding, logic or practice does not necessarily make it invalid. It may remain a mystery. Even some of those things I personally experience are like that. Curiously, some of the mystery was almost acknowledged in favorite songs we sang. "That God should love a sinner such as I . . ." We embraced the idea that some things just didn't make sense, but we were glad that they were true. Mystery . . . and wonderful.

[Susan Unger]

I still love the pastor, but when you use water, it's a baptism, regardless of what you call it or believe.

So how would it be different with a dedication service? And what is the difference between what baptism signifies and does, and what dedication signifies and does?

[Dennis M. Scott]

So how would it be different with a dedication service? And what is the difference between what baptism signifies and does, and what dedication signifies and does?

A dedication service does not include the baptism rite, by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - as with a rose dipped in water. A dedication is the parents' presenting (dedicating) the child to God - which is usually also included in an infant baptism. In both situations, the local church may or maynot - depending on the leadership of the pastor - participate and accept, pledge and commit to, the nurture and encouragement of the child. Many feel that a dedication reflects an act of the parents and/or church, and that a baptism is about the grace of God on the infant.

In those times when I am asked to assist in a dedication, I do all I can to highlight the grace of God on the infant. When participating in an infant baptism, I usually point out that in that in the context of the Church, the parents are presenting the child.

Earlier editions of the Manual depicted no difference between infant baptism and infant dedication, using the same ceremony under one title: "The Dedication or Baptism of Children."

There is an argument that says, "Since the early church apparently baptized whole families, including infants, why would the church today not do that?"

[Jeremy D. Scott]

A dedication service does not include the baptism rite, by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - as with a rose dipped in water. A dedication is the parents' presenting (dedicating) the child to God - which is usually also included in an infant baptism. In both situations, the local church may or maynot - depending on the leadership of the pastor - participate and accept, pledge and commit to, the nurture and encouragement of the child. Many feel that a dedication reflects an act of the parents and/or church, and that a baptism is about the grace of God on the infant.

Actually, for Meghan and I, one reason we decided on baptism for our children is because of the role it plays within Christian community.

What is baptism (infants aside)? Well, in part, it is the public display of the entrance of an individual into the Christian community. It is the public declaration by the individual and by the Church that the baptized is now part of the Church.

For both my wife and I, we've never known life outside of the Church. While we've had our fallings and shortcomings, we've really always been a part of the Church. We want the same for our children.

So yes, we made that decision for them. They can choose to accept or reject that decision at an appropriate age - as they can and will with all the decisions we'll make for them throughout their early lives. It's obviously our hope and prayer that we raise them in ways that are most conducive to them making the choice to follow Christ.

What happened at their baptism was a sign of and to something, not an end. I believe that this is true for all baptisms. Baptism is a sign and symbol of what happens in one's life.

However, we tend to over-individualize baptism (again, infants aside). It is for both the individual and the community. It is a commitment both of the newly-baptized to Christ and his Church and of the baptizing community (the Church) to the individual. I feel that every baptism should include verbal commitment between the witnesses and the baptized.

Meghan and I wanted that for our children.

[Susan Unger]

A dedication service does not include the baptism rite, by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - as with a rose dipped in water. A dedication is the parents' presenting (dedicating) the child to God - which is usually also included in an infant baptism. In both situations, the local church may or maynot - depending on the leadership of the pastor - participate and accept, pledge and commit to, the nurture and encouragement of the child. Many feel that a dedication reflects an act of the parents and/or church, and that a baptism is about the grace of God on the infant.

In those times when I am asked to assist in a dedication, I do all I can to highlight the grace of God on the infant. When participating in an infant baptism, I usually point out that in that in the context of the Church, the parents are presenting the child.

Earlier editions of the Manual depicted no difference between infant baptism and infant dedication, using the same ceremony under one title: "The Dedication or Baptism of Children."

There is an argument that says, "Since the early church apparently baptized whole families, including infants, why would the church today not do that?"

Without the water and the rose, what is in the dedication ceremony? Is it mainly a prayer time?

I wonder where I was during all those baptism/dedication ceremonies. I think I was too busy concentrating on are the parents really intending on following through or is this just a ceremony to them, too.

[Susan Unger]

Actually, for Meghan and I, one reason we decided on baptism for our children is because of the role it plays within Christian community.

What is baptism (infants aside)? Well, in part, it is the public display of the entrance of an individual into the Christian community. It is the public declaration by the individual and by the Church that the baptized is now part of the Church.

For both my wife and I, we've never known life outside of the Church. While we've had our fallings and shortcomings, we've really always been a part of the Church. We want the same for our children.

So yes, we made that decision for them. They can choose to accept or reject that decision at an appropriate age - as they can and will with all the decisions we'll make for them throughout their early lives. It's obviously our hope and prayer that we raise them in ways that are most conducive to them making the choice to follow Christ.

What happened at their baptism was a sign of and to something, not an end. I believe that this is true for all baptisms. Baptism is a sign and symbol of what happens in one's life.

However, we tend to over-individualize baptism (again, infants aside). It is for both the individual and the community. It is a commitment both of the newly-baptized to Christ and his Church and of the baptizing community (the Church) to the individual. I feel that every baptism should include verbal commitment between the witnesses and the baptized.

Meghan and I wanted that for our children.

"Baptism is a sign and symbol of what happens in one's life." I've heard of this from my fundie friends.

"It is for both the individual and the community." Never heard of this. But then, my former church wasn't into community much.

The only real teaching I have ever heard on it was from a historical perspective [and I think I got that from a study bible or a history text book for one of my college classes]. The early church with the persecution it suffered used baptism to visibly show identification of the new believer with the new beliefs. It was for the non-christian community as a sign, and for the new believer a reminder to hang in there while being persecuted. Learning this in the absense of any "mysterious" teaching has left me unsure of how to take any statements about infant baptism. I am not a proponent of believers' baptism only...just more confused than anything. I read through an old thread in which one person [Jamie Wayne?] believed emphatically that baptism was so special that to do it a second time was wrong. While others would rebaptize if the person asked after salvation. I read through that whole post and was confused over the controversy but then also realized that maybe there was something to it for him to believe so passionately.

[Susan Unger]

Most of us have what we now consider to be "inadequate" earlier experiences in the realm of teaching/learning. One would think that since what we heard/learned was so messed up, it's a miracle that God's grace got through to us at all! But somehow, it did - thank God! THAT, is part of the miracle: and it is a mystery. Seems like that might be part of the "foolishness of preaching" reference..

I feel for anyone else who has as messed theological learning as myself. Mine came from a childhood pastor/spouse/church who meant well but just dropped the ball on too many occaisons.

In my own background, I seem to recollect that the term "mystery" was probably put in the same category with "magic", and therefore unChristian. Even if it would ever have been something acceptable in a Christian context, it would have been put into that pile of phenomenon that were only for the first century church - a different "dispensation" than the present. Into that pile were thrown things like spiritual gifts, demons, sometimes even divine healing. If it was something outside the experience or understanding of whoever was talking - or preaching - it was said that it wasn't "for us." I suspect that to be part of the reason some in our movement insisted that the sacraments - of which we adamantly insist to be only two - were ONLY symbolic of something else that believers had actually EXPERIENCED - mainly, an emotional encounter with God in which they had been "saved." Unfortunately, even that experience had been whittled down to an almost mechanical formulated procedure that could not happen until the seeker had "done" some things, and taking the "mystery" out of it. No, mystery was not something included in one's Christian experience. Fortunately, even in those days we gave lip service to continual learning, believing one could understand things better by-and-by even in this life. So my understanding eventually came to accept things I couldn't exactly explain, or even comprehend.

The highlighted part I think was my childhood pastor's mentality. Thankfully, God helped me to want something else when I was an adult. Now, if I could just find more community to support me with this I'd be doing good.

[Meghan Schoonover]

Well, I've seen two infant baptisms in the Nazarene church...my own kids. I came from a Lutheran heritage, my husband from a nominally Epsicopal one. We both were baptized as babies (I cringe at the term "sprinkled" b/c it comes across as condescending, besides, most of the time the water is poured, not sprinkled...) and my beliefs regarding baptism differ from the official Nazarene and Lutheran ones. It is rare in our local congregation - I only know of one other done in the last 20 years in our local congregation. I always like to share this picture when these conversations come up. :) (edited to add...the folks on the right are godparents to my youngest daughter...it was their youngest daughter who was the only other infant baptism in our local congregation; they are from a Christian Reformed background and so had a more convenantal view of baptism that I do...interesting the variations in belief even amongst paedobapists!)

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f145/canadiyank/DSCF0784.jpg

[Dennis M. Scott]

Well, I've seen two infant baptisms in the Nazarene church...my own kids. I came from a Lutheran heritage, my husband from a nominally Epsicopal one. We both were baptized as babies (I cringe at the term "sprinkled" b/c it comes across as condescending, besides, most of the time the water is poured, not sprinkled...) and my beliefs regarding baptism differ from the official Nazarene and Lutheran ones. It is rare in our local congregation - I only know of one other done in the last 20 years in our local congregation. I always like to share this picture when these conversations come up. :) (edited to add...the folks on the right are godparents to my youngest daughter...it was their youngest daughter who was the only other infant baptism in our local congregation; they are from a Christian Reformed background and so had a more convenantal view of baptism that I do...interesting the variations in belief even amongst paedobapists!)

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f145/canadiyank/DSCF0784.jpg


Love the picture!

You have, however, thrown another twist into the fray. What is this "godparents" thing? I know it's pretty common now, but it would have been dismissed as some sort of heresy in my earlier years. Linda and I serve as godparents for a couple families, and it seems to have achieved higher acceptance, but when did it sneak in? :basic03

Do those designated understand what it means? What DOES it mean?

[Meghan Schoonover]

You have, however, thrown another twist into the fray. What is this "godparents" thing? I know it's pretty common now, but it would have been dismissed as some sort of heresy in my earlier years. Linda and I serve as godparents for a couple families, and it seems to have achieved higher acceptance, but when did it sneak in? :basic03

Do those designated understand what it means? What DOES it mean?

Lutherans have "sponsors," who, along with the congregation, say they will help raise the baby in the church and Christian faith. It's very similar to the parts of the Nazarene service where the congregation is engaged. I think years ago it was whomever you wanted to raise your kids if you croaked, and I know that's what my first daughter's godmother thought when I asked her to be a godparent, but I had to explain how our intentions were different.

We asked our girls' godparents to "stand up" with us as symbolic and real spiritual support. Most of the symbolism was at the service itself - they didn't really *do* anything except stand there. :laughing But we knew that they loved us very much and would help us physically and spiritually raise our kids. In practical terms we have asked them to help us help our kids "remember" their baptismal birthdays...what this has usually meant is a card/small gift on their baptismal birthdays that has to do with their spiritual growth and something small to open, say a butterfly ring signifying their growth as children of God, etc.

Growing up I always knew my baptismal birthday (July 1) and it was celebrated and talked about within my family, "remembered" during the liturgy, and marked yearly with a card from the pastor who baptized me. Unlike others who say they don't remember their infant baptisms I always knew I was baptized, whether or not I remembered the physical act of it, since it was remembered within my church and physical family. I have never had an inkling of wanting to be rebaptized, although I can understand those who do. For me it truly was a birth into the family of God and I was constantly reminded of that in various ways.

B/c of these memories, and the reality that my kids are going to see very few infant "babytizms" (as my eldest called it when my youngest was baptized), I have asked my girls' godparents to take an active role in helping to spiritually care and teach my children, as well as help them "remember" the date in a celebratory way.

:)

[Meghan Schoonover]

Oh, I meant to say, too, Dennis, that I'm sure the families to whom you are a godparent would welcome an annual card/token gift, in addition to any spiritual guidance/care you are able to give your godchildren. In our family my folks took "godparenting" very seriously and usually marked birthdays and such, as well as baptismal birthdates. I would love to encourage godparents to take an active spiritual role in their godchildrens' lives, in addition to "standing up" at the baptism itself.

[Wayne Paul]

Oh, I meant to say, too, Dennis, that I'm sure the families to whom you are a godparent would welcome an annual card/token gift, in addition to any spiritual guidance/care you are able to give your godchildren. In our family my folks took "godparenting" very seriously and usually marked birthdays and such, as well as baptismal birthdates. I would love to encourage godparents to take an active spiritual role in their godchildrens' lives, in addition to "standing up" at the baptism itself.

I can see from your last two posts your godparents were very much a part of your spiritual development.

The value of having caring people out side of the biological family willing to take on the responsibility of assisting in a child’s social and spiritual development should not be underestimated.

There is a lot that can be learned from the traditions and practices of mainline denominations. The meaning, responsibilities and rewards of being godparents is a prime example.

[Susan Unger]

Lutherans have "sponsors," who, along with the congregation, say they will help raise the baby in the church and Christian faith. It's very similar to the parts of the Nazarene service where the congregation is engaged. I think years ago it was whomever you wanted to raise your kids if you croaked, and I know that's what my first daughter's godmother thought when I asked her to be a godparent, but I had to explain how our intentions were different.

We asked our girls' godparents to "stand up" with us as symbolic and real spiritual support. Most of the symbolism was at the service itself - they didn't really *do* anything except stand there. :laughing But we knew that they loved us very much and would help us physically and spiritually raise our kids. In practical terms we have asked them to help us help our kids "remember" their baptismal birthdays...what this has usually meant is a card/small gift on their baptismal birthdays that has to do with their spiritual growth and something small to open, say a butterfly ring signifying their growth as children of God, etc.

Growing up I always knew my baptismal birthday (July 1) and it was celebrated and talked about within my family, "remembered" during the liturgy, and marked yearly with a card from the pastor who baptized me. Unlike others who say they don't remember their infant baptisms I always knew I was baptized, whether or not I remembered the physical act of it, since it was remembered within my church and physical family. I have never had an inkling of wanting to be rebaptized, although I can understand those who do. For me it truly was a birth into the family of God and I was constantly reminded of that in various ways.

B/c of these memories, and the reality that my kids are going to see very few infant "babytizms" (as my eldest called it when my youngest was baptized), I have asked my girls' godparents to take an active role in helping to spiritually care and teach my children, as well as help them "remember" the date in a celebratory way.

:)

This sounds quite wonderful. This makes the whole baptism process into a more than one time event.

[Crystal Lutton]

I haven't read through all the pages but wanted to respond to the OP. After joining our current congregation we have had 3 children. When our first (our 6yo ds) was born we dedicated him--in our congregation this is a beautiful thing. The baby is wrapped in a Tallit and the Aaronic benediction is pronounced over them in Hebrew and English while held by the parents before the congregation. It can be more elaborate if the family chooses to speak something over the child. If the family is Jewish their Hebrew name is given at this time.

When our twins were born, as soon as we were all healthy enough to get back to services they were each wrapped in a tallit and similarly blessed.

Then several months later our oldest two expressed interest in being baptized so we scheduled a date to do that. Our third was old enough to profess faith and express love for the Lord and at the last minute wanted to be baptized also, so my husband and I spoke about it and then talked to Rabbi and we took all of our children into the water and baptized them with a lesson on the family baptisms of Scripture. It was very special for everyone.

[Susan Unger]

I haven't read through all the pages but wanted to respond to the OP. After joining our current congregation we have had 3 children. When our first (our 6yo ds) was born we dedicated him--in our congregation this is a beautiful thing. The baby is wrapped in a Tallit and the Aaronic benediction is pronounced over them in Hebrew and English while held by the parents before the congregation. It can be more elaborate if the family chooses to speak something over the child. If the family is Jewish their Hebrew name is given at this time.

When our twins were born, as soon as we were all healthy enough to get back to services they were each wrapped in a tallit and similarly blessed.

Then several months later our oldest two expressed interest in being baptized so we scheduled a date to do that. Our third was old enough to profess faith and express love for the Lord and at the last minute wanted to be baptized also, so my husband and I spoke about it and then talked to Rabbi and we took all of our children into the water and baptized them with a lesson on the family baptisms of Scripture. It was very special for everyone.

Like Meghan's example, this sounds wonderful. I am starting to realize just how much I missed out on this from my old church - not only did I miss out theologically, but experiencially. This would have been so neat to have in my childhood.

[Jamie Wayne]

For the purposes of this poll, am I clergy or not? I've never held any position that would give me the opportunity to perform an infant baptism, but technically I am clergy.

I am not a clergy person, nor have I seen an infant baptism in a Nazarene church, but I have seen many infant baptisms in non-Nazarene churches.

That wasn't one of the options, though.

To your point, though, Ryan, I don't believe that one must be a clergy person to "perform" a baptism anyway; I would say that anyone can "perform" a baptism, and it would be valid if the element of water were present by one means or another (emersion, sprinkling, etc...) and the form is Trinitarian.

I guess I'm refuting the thinking that one must hold a "position" to baptize.

[Jamie Wayne]

I read through an old thread in which one person [Jamie Wayne?] believed emphatically that baptism was so special that to do it a second time was wrong. While others would rebaptize if the person asked after salvation. I read through that whole post and was confused over the controversy but then also realized that maybe there was something to it for him to believe so passionately.

That probably was me.

Rob Staples, in his book, "Outward Sign and Inward Grace," sums up the evangelical Anglican writer Michael Green in saying:

"Rebaptism is basically wrong because it cannot be done! Baptism is universally understood as the sacrament of initiation. By definition, one cannot be initiated more than once into the same thing."

Rob Staples continues, quoting H. Orton Wiley:

"Baptism being an intitatory rite is to be administered only one. It establishes a permanent covenant and is not therefore to be repeated. The baptized one may fall away, but the gracious promise of God still stands. it can not be made of none effect. If he falls a way, he needs to repent and believe, and the Father stands ready to restore him, but he does not need to be rebaptized."

Rob Staples then writes, summarizing Wiley's position:

"A citizen does not petition again for citizenship. An adopted person does not seek to be adopted again into the same family. Baptism is effective, but not unconditionally so. The conditions are repentance and faith. When those have not been present, the person does not need baptism all over again."

In my favourite passage, Rob Staples quotes Laurence Hull Stookey:

"To rebaptize is to say, 'God, you once promised your steadfast love and creative power to this person. But perhaps you didn't mean it. Promise it again. You supposedly incorporated this person into the community of the covenant; perhaps that didn't take effect. Do it again.' Hence, rebaptism impugns the integrity of God. Stated bluntly, rebaptism is a form of blasphemy - or else it is a way of saying that baptism doesn't mean anything at all in terms of divine activity."

That's why I'm passionate about it, and I really couldn't have stated it any better than that.

[Dennis M. Scott]

That probably was me.

Rob Staples, in his book, "Outward Sign and Inward Grace," sums up the evangelical Anglican writer Michael Green in saying:

"Rebaptism is basically wrong because it cannot be done! Baptism is universally understood as the sacrament of initiation. By definition, one cannot be initiated more than once into the same thing."

Rob Staples continues, quoting H. Orton Wiley:

"Baptism being an intitatory rite is to be administered only one. It establishes a permanent covenant and is not therefore to be repeated. The baptized one may fall away, but the gracious promise of God still stands. it can not be made of none effect. If he falls a way, he needs to repent and believe, and the Father stands ready to restore him, but he does not need to be rebaptized."

Rob Staples then writes, summarizing Wiley's position:

"A citizen does not petition again for citizenship. An adopted person does not seek to be adopted again into the same family. Baptism is effective, but not unconditionally so. The conditions are repentance and faith. When those have not been present, the person does not need baptism all over again."

In my favourite passage, Rob Staples quotes Laurence Hull Stookey:

"To rebaptize is to say, 'God, you once promised your steadfast love and creative power to this person. But perhaps you didn't mean it. Promise it again. You supposedly incorporated this person into the community of the covenant; perhaps that didn't take effect. Do it again.' Hence, rebaptism impugns the integrity of God. Stated bluntly, rebaptism is a form of blasphemy - or else it is a way of saying that baptism doesn't mean anything at all in terms of divine activity."

That's why I'm passionate about it, and I really couldn't have stated it any better than that.

I greatly respect Rob Staples. Generally, I agree with him on this point. I probably personally wouldn't quote Stookey on the issue. There are some other things that baptism is/does. It also is a testimony, and sometimes we encourage Christians to testify more than once. Many believe in doing that one is not committing blasphemy. Rebaptism does not impugn the integrity of God any more than having Him forgive one's sins more than once. Statements as harsh as the one quoted here frequently are an indication of some other issues. How frequently did Jesus burst forth with such an utterance? Sometimes theologians maintain positions that prevent them from serving as effective pastors. Imagine oneself a pastor, and a new believer requests baptism: would you say, "Such a desire is blasphemy, and you should seek God's forgiveness for offending God!"?

Undoubtedly there are some who will strongly disagree with me. I've a friend who will not marry persons who have been members of his church for less than a year. I heard him once list ten reasons supporting his position - some of which were amazing twists of scripture. Finally, he added an eleventh: "I just don't like doing weddings."

If anything, we neglect baptizing, rather than do too many.

In those few times when I have been aware that I was baptizing one who had been baptized as an infant, but now had come to faith consciously, I usually have prefaced the act by saying something like, "Mary acknowledges God's grace in her life, and is grateful to have been baptized when she was just a baby. Today she is publicly affirming her newfound faith in God's saving grace."

Anecdote only. Stephen Nease was baptized as an infant in 1925 while his father was president of ENC, and Stephen was just a couple weeks old. He was conscious of that all his adult life. He pastored, and served in a variety of educational positions at various Nazarene colleges. When he was president of NTS, he visited Israel with a group of theologians and seminary professors. At one point as they walked along the Jordan River, one of the others said, "What a wonderful opportunity this would be to baptize someone. Are there any in our group who've never been baptized as a believer?" Dr. Nease relayed to me that suddenly he was nearly overcome with a sense of the Holy Spirit prodding him. All of his life he had attended baptism services, and had participated in several - always with the awareness that his own baptism had occurred when his parents had their pastor baptize him as an infant. Now, however, he suddenly had this urgent leading to be baptized. So he was. There, in an impromptu service, the seminary president was RE-baptized, with several of his faculty members and theologians participating, even though they knew better. Over the years a couple of them have talked to me about it, but none have indicated they thought it was especially blasphemous. Rob Staples was on the seminary faculty at that time, but I don't remember whether he was on that trip.

Just because the seminary president did it doesn't make it right, but along the way I suspect it has made me a little more lenient.

[Susan Unger]

That probably was me.

I think it was cuz I remember your little symbol for your avatar [still haven't figured out what it says on it]. I will say that I am starting to understand why it means so much to some folks. Don't know that I am on board yet [due to background] but am getting some understanding.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

RE-BAPTISM

The answer to re-baptism is NO and YES. Just as the person requesting re-baptism has a choice, you (pastor) have a choice. You can have exceptions to your personal belief. It is not a heaven or hell decision.

I do not think re-baptism is necessary if one says there was not enough confession, not enough water or not enough faith. If Baptism is a Covenant Sign, God has not broken His part of the Covenant. Our repentance is a return to our Covenant with God. If this was already done, what are we undoing or redoing?

I think the issue circles around the psychological and theological. It seems well to say to the now grown infant or even adult that when you were a baby your parents chose the Christian faith for you. Now you are deciding to embrace that decision or to make your own choice. It is not about your parents. It is about you accepting what God did for you as an infant. If you still choose re-baptism, what do you think God would do different? My advice is for you to accept what was done for you and make it your own. The choice is still open.

From a pastoral perspective, you have to decide if you have to turn the candidate or parents away. I do not think it is sufficient to just say “NO.” I would counsel them to see that re-baptism is not necessary. In your counseling you may throw stones like David and preach like Paul and still would not change their mind. So, what do you do? I think sometimes the pastoral norm must override the historical and theological norm. That is, if the candidate insists on re-baptism, I would re-baptize him/her. This is better than to turn the candidate or parents away like the Anabaptists. If they are bent on re-baptism, they would go across the street and be re-baptized.

[Jamie Wayne]

I greatly respect Rob Staples. Generally, I agree with him on this point. I probably personally wouldn't quote Stookey on the issue. There are some other things that baptism is/does. It also is a testimony, and sometimes we encourage Christians to testify more than once.

Giving testimony is not a sacrament!!!

Give testimony and testify all you want, but what God has done is a little different, don't you think?

Rebaptism does not impugn the integrity of God any more than having Him forgive one's sins more than once.

Confession is also, to some, a sacrament, but some sacraments are meant to be repeated, such as the Eucharist, but again, as an initiatory sacrament, it is substantially different than asking God to continually forgive one of ones sins. Your proposition simply doesn't hold up because you're comparing an apple to an orange, so to speak.


Statements as harsh as the one quoted here frequently are an indication of some other issues.

Though, that does not necessarily refute the position that I illustrated; in fact, it doesn't refute it whatsoever, really.

Perhaps the issue is really and truly the belief that in baptism there is nothing to be redone - similar to the belief that Jesus' work on the Cross isn't something that needs to be redone. It would be similar to asking Jesus to die all over again because one believed that His first death wasn't sufficient. That could, reasonably, be seen as blasphemous, don't you think?


If anything, we neglect baptizing, rather than do too many.

Agreed.

[Susan Unger]

Giving testimony is not a sacrament!!!


Oh, yeah, it was definitely your comments that I was thinking of Jamie cuz I remember all the !!!!!! that you put after your statements on baptism. :p

[Dennis M. Scott]

Curiously, it seems like the sacrament most reminiscent of what Jesus did on the cross would be the eucharist - body and blood - which we actually have been commanded/encouraged to do repeatedly, apparently without any charge of blasphemy. In fact, the directive was as often as we meet/eat. Rarely does anyone suggest that because we partake frequently we are expecting the historic Christ to repeat His sacrifice. If in fact that were the case, it would seem appropriate to suggest the same would be appropriate in the event of baptism, too: hardly blasphemous, since that expectation is not usually present. Not conclusive - merely curious.

My sliver of a point was that baptism is not only a reinactment of His death. It is also a reinactment of His resurrection (fortunately, we don't leave them under the water), and it is also a testimony to others present of one's new birth, and the cleansing element. I didn't mean to indicate that testifying is a sacrament: but testifying is part of this event. That was the case way before this became a Christian sacrament. Historic Jesus didn't invent baptism, and neither did John. See Crystal's train of thought in the "Why was Jesus baptized?" thread - a thread which I had avoided reading until this discussion :o. The history of baptism (pre-Christian) was not a one-time-only practice. That tradition apparently came along later. The uniqueness of Jesus' baptism was not that he was being baptized, but the appearance of the Dove. IMO Paul's "one baptism" is referencing something else entirely. So while I generally accept the one-time only baptism position, it's foundations presented thus far seem a little weak.

Jesus did not tell us to repeat baptism; but neither did He tell us to discontinue the Jewish practice of oft-baptism. He did specifically tell us to repeat the Eucharist. It might be argued that had He strongly wanted it to be one time only, it would have been helpful for Him to give that heads-up since He did urge us to repeat the taking of the bread and wine. Perhaps He thought it not especially consequential that the coming Protestant Church would recognize only these two as sacraments.

By the way, Jamie, I'm glad to see you here again. Maybe you've been here, and I just haven't noticed. Naznet is getting so large it really is difficult to keep up even just on reading, let alone posting.

Also, Nazarenes are pitifully poor at dialoguing about the Sacraments. Your background likely has prepared you better. Please be gentile with me! :o

[Jamie Wayne]

Curiously, it seems like the sacrament most reminiscent of what Jesus did on the cross would be the eucharist - body and blood - which we actually have been commanded/encouraged to do repeatedly, apparently without any charge of blasphemy.

I agree, Dennis, but some would be quite offended - and might accuse others of blasphemy - if it were suggested that in the Eucharist Jesus is being sacrificed all over again! What have we come to call it? An "unbloody" sacrifice!

In fact, the directive was as often as we meet/eat. Rarely does anyone suggest that because we partake frequently we are expecting the historic Christ to repeat His sacrifice. If in fact that were the case, it would seem appropriate to suggest the same would be appropriate in the event of baptism, too: hardly blasphemous, since that expectation is not usually present. Not conclusive - merely curious.

Yet there are some who have looked at the Mass as actually being another sacrifice, as I said above. Furthermore, this line of thinking doesn't seem to acknowledge that baptism, like circumcision, was an initiation ritual - and who among us would want to be re-circumcised?

My sliver of a point was that baptism is not only a reinactment of His death. It is also a reinactment of His resurrection (fortunately, we don't leave them under the water), and it is also a testimony to others present of one's new birth, and the cleansing element.

I understand, and I appreciate that; however, most of us don't say that we are born again...again. ;)

I didn't mean to indicate that testifying is a sacrament: but testifying is part of this event.

I understand, and I appreciate that, too; however, I think that, when we think of sacraments in this way, i.e., that of testifying, then we're confusing sacraments with non-sacraments. Similarly, dedications are not sacraments, either. This is true even while acknowledging that testifying can be a powerful part of what is going on.

So while I generally accept the one-time only baptism position, it's foundations presented thus far seem a little weak.

I can accept that; however, the tradition of the Church is generally pretty clear about it. Maybe that's part of the problem - often, today, tradition means very little, in part because fewer of us know what the tradition is in the first place.

Jesus did not tell us to repeat baptism; but neither did He tell us to discontinue the Jewish practice of oft-baptism. He did specifically tell us to repeat the Eucharist. It might be argued that had He strongly wanted it to be one time only, it would have been helpful for Him to give that heads-up since He did urge us to repeat the taking of the bread and wine. Perhaps He thought it not especially consequential that the coming Protestant Church would recognize only these two as sacraments.

Again, I would differentiate between baptism as an initiation rite and the Eucharist which is a matter of sustenance. Repeating baptism in the "Jewish" sense doesn't make much sense after Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, though.

By the way, Jamie, I'm glad to see you here again. Maybe you've been here, and I just haven't noticed. Naznet is getting so large it really is difficult to keep up even just on reading, let alone posting.

Thanks, Dennis. I lurk around once and a while, but re-baptism is a hard subject for me not to want to jump in on. :)

Also, Nazarenes are pitifully poor at dialoguing about the Sacraments. Your background likely has prepared you better. Please be gentile with me! :o

Along similar lines, though I would consider Holy Orders to be a "minor" Sacrament, if you will, Eric Frey brought up some good points on ordination in another thread that highlights that same idea.

Anyway, it's been good sparring with you...if we can call it that.

Take it easy, Dennis.

[Eric Frey]

I trying to learn to stay away from these discussions for my own well-being:laughing:laughing:laughing

But, my 4 month old son was just baptized. With "believer" baptism I require a written testimony. So for his, I crafted a testimony/teaching on infant baptism. Here it is:

Hello brothers and sisters. My name is Pax Joseph Frey and I was just baptized (which is, of course, why I can call you all my brothers and sisters). I would love to share with you all my experience of baptism. First, you need to understand I am still less than 4 months old. I don't know very much yet, and I understand even less. But there is one thing I know even at this young age. The thing I know is that I have parents who love me.

I know this because they tell me every day. Guess what my favorite Bible verse is? "You are my son, whom I love. With you I am well pleased." I know this verse because my daddy tells it to me every day. I know my mommy and daddy love me because they always tell me - and because they always show me. Whenever I cry out to them, they are right there to answer me. Whenever I make a mess, they are right there to clean me up. Whenever I fall and bump my head or scrape my skin, I get all kinds of hugs and kisses to reassure me that I am ok. I am still very young, but I know my mommy and daddy love me. They tell me that even though they love me unconditionally, some day I will have to either accept them as my family and trust their love, authority and wisdom, or walk away from them and go my own way. But no matter what happens in the future - no matter what choices I make or what paths I take, I my mommy and daddy love me more than anything in the world and nothing I could ever do will change that.

My mommy and daddy also tell me I have an even better daddy who loves me far more than even they do. They tell me I can be sure of that through my baptism. They tell me that in baptism my heavenly daddy breaks through the clouds, and as his Holy Spirit descends on me and seals me as his own forever, he declares to the world, "This is my son, whom I love. With him I am well pleased." Mommy and Daddy tell me that I can know my heavenly daddy loves me because he shows me all the time. Whenever I cry out to him, he is right there to answer me. Whenever I make a mess. he is right there to make me clean. Whenever I stumble and fall, he is right there to pick me up and get me back on the right path.

Most of all they tell me that I can know I have a heavenly daddy who loves me because he has given me two great gifts. One is this great big family called the church that at my baptism promised to accept me and nurture me and help me in all the stages of my growth. The best gift is his Son, my brother, Jesus Christ. Jesus is God, but he became a baby just like me. He grew up and faced all the things I will have to face. He even died so that I may die to sin and was raised to life that I might live life to the fullest. "WOW! What a gift!"

But they also tell me that even though he loves me unconditionally, some day I am going to have to start choosing for myself whether I am going to accept him and his church as my family, following him by trusting in his love, authority and wisdom, or if I am going to walk away from my family and choose my own path. Yes, I am young. No, I don't understand very much. But no matter what happens in the future - no matter what choices I make or what paths I take, I know that I have a Daddy in Heaven and a Family of Faith here on earth who love me more than anything in the world and nothing I could ever do will change that!

[Jamie Wayne]

I trying to learn to stay away from these discussions for my own well-being:laughing:laughing:laughing

That's no fun, Eric!

[Ryan Scott]

Again, this seems to be off the topic of specifically infant baptism, but I still struggle with what appears to be, in Eric's narrative, a sense that a baptism is required for the person to be in proper relationship with God.

I do not dispute that baptism is a miraculous outpouring of grace from God into the life of a believer. But I would like to separate that gracious act from the gracious act of putting right the relationship between than person and God.

Baptism is the affirmation of the Church of a previous work of God in a person's life. Is there something special in baptism? Definitely, but I would equate it with the grace bestowed by God through a number of other means of grace.

I think some people react strongly against infant baptism because some equate it so closely with salvation. The Christian is every bit a Christian before baptism, but baptism imparts the affirmation of the Church (which is Christ's body and Christ therefore plays a part). I think we need a definition which clearly delineates God's salvific activity from the sacrament of baptism.

[Roland Hearn]

As a pastor I have performed infant baptism and loved it. It was one of those developing, now developed, views. The general opinion in the CON growing up here in Australia was that infant baptism was wrong and perhaps offensive to God. When I was first a pastor I had my own children dedicated but had learned enough of grace to recognize that you gain nothing by forcing views on people and you gain a lot by nurturing faith. So I started baptizing those babies that the parents made request to do so. Nothing went tragically wrong. As I started exploring more thoroughly the Wesleyan position and letting go a lot of the rigid beliefs that were so much a part of my childhood I realized that anything you can do to "picture" grace for people was a good thing. I wouldn't push a person in either direction but as one of our earlier leaders (and I can't be bothered checking but I think it was Uncle Buddy, it might also of have been RT Williams) said in reference to the mode of baptism, 'the earth is two thirds water a person ought to be allowed to have as much as they want." (or something like that)

[David Parker]

Anecdote only. Stephen Nease was baptized as an infant in 1925 while his father was president of ENC, and Stephen was just a couple weeks old. He was conscious of that all his adult life. He pastored, and served in a variety of educational positions at various Nazarene colleges. When he was president of NTS, he visited Israel with a group of theologians and seminary professors. At one point as they walked along the Jordan River, one of the others said, "What a wonderful opportunity this would be to baptize someone. Are there any in our group who've never been baptized as a believer?" Dr. Nease relayed to me that suddenly he was nearly overcome with a sense of the Holy Spirit prodding him. All of his life he had attended baptism services, and had participated in several - always with the awareness that his own baptism had occurred when his parents had their pastor baptize him as an infant. Now, however, he suddenly had this urgent leading to be baptized. So he was. There, in an impromptu service, the seminary president was RE-baptized, with several of his faculty members and theologians participating, even though they knew better. Over the years a couple of them have talked to me about it, but none have indicated they thought it was especially blasphemous. Rob Staples was on the seminary faculty at that time, but I don't remember whether he was on that trip.

Just because the seminary president did it doesn't make it right, but along the way I suspect it has made me a little more lenient.

This happened to my wife Sharon when we visited Israel in 2000. She was baptized Catholic as a baby, but never really had a relationship with Christ until attending the Protestant church at which we met.

There was an opportunity for any in our family who desired to, to be baptized in the Jordan river. (Israel has a wonderful facility for just that purpose) Sharon immediately felt she needed to receive a "believer's baptism". She shared a tearful testimony, was baptized, and all was well.

Later that day at the hotel, a member of our family who is Episcopalian challenged her very directly questioning why she would "deny" her infant baptism, and why it wasn't "enough". Was a tense and unpleasant conversation. Being family, it blew over, but I was saddened as to why anybody would challenge her and make an issue over it.

[Roland Hearn]

I've got to tell you that I can find no scripture or reason that would suggest a conflict between infant baptism and a later believer baptism. I think the debate is a storm in a tea cup.
Personally I don't see a problem with baptizing someone that has previously been saved and baptized and wishes to be baptized again as a result of a renewed experience. If we do not believe that one cannot loose their salvation why would one maintain that one cannot loose their baptism?

[Susan Unger]

If we do not believe that one cannot loose their salvation why would one maintain that one cannot loose their baptism?

That is my issue in a nutshell.

[Hans Deventer]

To your point, though, Ryan, I don't believe that one must be a clergy person to "perform" a baptism anyway; I would say that anyone can "perform" a baptism, and it would be valid if the element of water were present by one means or another (emersion, sprinkling, etc...) and the form is Trinitarian.

You're more into the fathers than I am, but in my mind I have a recollection of having read from one of them that in case of emergency, even baptism with sand was an option? Have you read anything to that effect, Jamie?

[Hans Deventer]

If we do not believe that one cannot lose their salvation why would one maintain that one cannot loose their baptism?

OK, let me give it a try. Salvation is impossible without a person's reaction. You can't be saved against your will. So you can indeed lose your salvation. Baptism, however, is (as you wrote below) a picture of grace. That grace can't be lost. There is no moment in time that you can say God doesn't love you anymore.
In the CotN, baptism of infants is based on prevenient grace. You can't lose that grace. Ever.

[David Parker]

OK, let me give it a try. Salvation is impossible without a person's reaction. You can't be saved against your will. So you can indeed lose your salvation. Baptism, however, is (as you wrote below) a picture of grace. That grace can't be lost. There is no moment in time that you can say God doesn't love you anymore.
In the CotN, baptism of infants is based on prevenient grace. You can't lose that grace. Ever.

So from that, do you conclude that a 'believer's baptism' after a person's "reaction" to salvation is improper if that person was baptized as an infant?

[Hans Deventer]

So from that, do you conclude that a 'believer's baptism' after a person's "reaction" to salvation is improper if that person was baptized as an infant?

I'm not sure if the word "improper" is the rigth one. "Unnecessary from a theological point of view", is perhaps better. Understandable in circumstances when people come back to God, yes, that too.

It seems to me our dealing with baptism is much more driven by emotions than by theology. But, I don't think God has too much problems with people being baptised again. I don't think het rejects people who want to commit themselves to Him, with whatever ritual they want to use to display that.

I'm in your situation as well, David. My wife has been baptised as an adult in the CotN, after having been baptised as an infant in the Dutch Reformed Church. And she has been away from the Lord for some years indeed. So did I understand her desire? Yes, I did and do. Do I think it was needed? No, I don't. God's love and grace for her has never changed, and never will. The initial testimony to that (infant baptism) remains a valid testimony all through her life.

But did you disagree with my post in the distinguishing between salvation and baptism, David? Am I mistaken theologically?

[Roland Hearn]

OK, let me give it a try. Salvation is impossible without a person's reaction. You can't be saved against your will. So you can indeed lose your salvation. Baptism, however, is (as you wrote below) a picture of grace. That grace can't be lost. There is no moment in time that you can say God doesn't love you anymore.
In the CotN, baptism of infants is based on prevenient grace. You can't lose that grace. Ever.

Ok, I agree completely but as a symbol why insist that you can only receive it once. I understand that the grace cannot be lost but does repeating the symbol suggest that you can or that you have availed yourself of that grace again? In the end it seems to me the case is entirely a philosophical rather than a biblical one and as such I wouldn't take too hard a stand either way.

[Hans Deventer]

Ok, I agree completely but as a symbol why insist that you can only receive it once. I understand that the grace cannot be lost but does repeating the symbol suggest that you can or that you have availed yourself of that grace again? In the end it seems to me the case is entirely a philosophical rather than a biblical one and as such I wouldn't take too hard a stand either way.

Roland, I'm not into taking hard stands. Hey, if only because I love my wife! :eek:

The only thing that does worry me somewhat comes from what Rob Staples once wrote about this: "The right question is "How is the church proclaiming the Gospel"?" That question has stuck to me as a crucial one for all we do in church. How do we proclaim the gospel?
I would not have a problem to rebaptise someone, but I'd make really sure to proclaim that one can never ever go beyond the grace of God and that any baptism is about that grace first, second, third and fourth, and only then, about our response. That's the heart of the matter to me, because I see way too many adult baptisms that seem to be about the person first.

[John Kennedy]

I've been watching this whole infant baptism/rebaptism discussion with interest. My mother was baptized as an infant in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. She never, in any way, intimated that she considered that baptism to be insufficient. She both baptized and dedicated infants (she was ordained and co-pastored with my father), as did my father. Dad did the dunking, however.

Both of them made it clear to persons requesting baptism that the Naz church offered three modes and accepted infant as well as adult baptism.

In the early 60's they were pastoring a church in Austin, Texas. The church had no baptistry, but a small Church of Christ a few blocks away allowed them to use their facilities on a Sunday afternoon.

Just before the service, she told my Dad that she had a strong feeling that she wanted to recieve baptism as an adult. I think she saw it as more of a reaffirmation than anything else. But, she also requested, since she had a deathly fear of being put under water, that she be sprinkled. Whether this immersion phobia could be attributed to over 150 years of Methodism in her family is a good question.

So, before Dad baptized a number of people by immersion, Mom knelt at the communion table and was sprinkled. Fortunately the good people at the Church of Christ who had, to say the least, rather firm ideas about the necessity of believers baptism by immersion only, probably never heard anything about it. Thomas and Alexander Campbell, however, probably rolled over in their graves... several times.

[Ryan Scott]

Well I've been a part of several baptism affirmation services in which I was sprinkled to remind me of my baptism. According to our polity, the only thing that made that something other than a re-baptism was the words spoken.

As much as I affirm the theological significance behind one baptism, I think the important element is that people understand the theology behind it. I would do my absolute best to explain to someone why a re-baptism wasn't necessary and I may refuse to do it if they kept insisting it was. However, if they knew it wasn't necessary and I felt not doing it would harm them in some way, I would probably do it, with the stipulation that it was a re-affirmation and appropriate explanation to the congregation.

I just don't see the harm in re-enacting as a means of affirmation. People do it all the time with weddings. We don't contend that they're claiming the first one wasn't good enough.

[Eric Frey]

Nor are we instant that they are being remarried.

[Roland Hearn]

As much as I affirm the theological significance behind one baptism,

I probably should not be doing this because I care about this issue so little but this is the point that I was hinting at. The theology behind "one baptism" is mistaken for an insistence on "once baptised". The one baptism the scriptures refers to I do not see as a numerical count of the times we are baptised but of the singularity of the grace reflected. There is only one faith but that is a faith that may be exercised many times.

[Ryan Scott]

I wasn't quoting scripture, just trying to refer to the theological principle in as short a manner as possible.

[Hans Deventer]

I probably should not be doing this

I always love it when I can agree with you, Roland! :laughing

[Edith K. Thurmond]

...I just don't see the harm in re-enacting as a means of affirmation....

Sliding in with a side note:

A Holy Water stoup is attached to the walls at all entrances to the nave (sanctuary) of churches like ours. It is a custom to sign oneself with Holy Water upon entering and leaving the church as a sign of one's Baptism. Every single time it reminds me of my baptism and makes me ever grateful for life in the church universal.

Blessings this Sixth Sunday after Pentecost,

[Dennis Bratcher]

In other traditions that have a history and a theological rationale for infant baptism followed by adult confirmation, what Dr. Nease did would be termed "renewal of baptismal vows," not a re-baptism (as in the example below). It is a common practice in liturgical churches. The difference is that a slightly different ritual is used that calls for rededication and affirmation rather than the full baptismal ritual, and is usually done by sprinkling. Often an entire service is dedicated to the renewal of baptismal vows for anyone in the congregation who wants to do so. This is usually scheduled soon after Christmas during Epiphany, usually on the first Sunday after Epiphany (in the Western Church’s calendar, the First Sunday after Epiphany is Baptism of the Lord Sunday).

My wife, who conducts liturgical services in the chapel, usually incorporates this into the service that Sunday. On one occasion she used aspersion with an aspergillum for the entire congregation after their response. Both the Anglicans and the Southern Baptists in that service mentioned how meaningful it was to them. As soon as we get settled into a new place this Fall, I hope to have that service/ritual online.

As far as neglecting baptism, I think this has as much to do with the debates about modes of baptism that are deeply a part of the evangelical psyche as much as it does weak sacramental theology (which is also a factor). If we were more open to the options of sprinkling and pouring, rather than trying to work in a trip to the Baptist Church to use the baptistery or spend three days filling and heating the baptistery to use for ten minutes, there might be more baptisms in evangelical churches.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.


I greatly respect Rob Staples. Generally, I agree with him on this point. I probably personally wouldn't quote Stookey on the issue. There are some other things that baptism is/does. It also is a testimony, and sometimes we encourage Christians to testify more than once. Many believe in doing that one is not committing blasphemy. Rebaptism does not impugn the integrity of God any more than having Him forgive one's sins more than once. Statements as harsh as the one quoted here frequently are an indication of some other issues. How frequently did Jesus burst forth with such an utterance? Sometimes theologians maintain positions that prevent them from serving as effective pastors. Imagine oneself a pastor, and a new believer requests baptism: would you say, "Such a desire is blasphemy, and you should seek God's forgiveness for offending God!"?

Undoubtedly there are some who will strongly disagree with me. I've a friend who will not marry persons who have been members of his church for less than a year. I heard him once list ten reasons supporting his position - some of which were amazing twists of scripture. Finally, he added an eleventh: "I just don't like doing weddings."

If anything, we neglect baptizing, rather than do too many.

In those few times when I have been aware that I was baptizing one who had been baptized as an infant, but now had come to faith consciously, I usually have prefaced the act by saying something like, "Mary acknowledges God's grace in her life, and is grateful to have been baptized when she was just a baby. Today she is publicly affirming her newfound faith in God's saving grace."

Anecdote only. Stephen Nease was baptized as an infant in 1925 while his father was president of ENC, and Stephen was just a couple weeks old. He was conscious of that all his adult life. He pastored, and served in a variety of educational positions at various Nazarene colleges. When he was president of NTS, he visited Israel with a group of theologians and seminary professors. At one point as they walked along the Jordan River, one of the others said, "What a wonderful opportunity this would be to baptize someone. Are there any in our group who've never been baptized as a believer?" Dr. Nease relayed to me that suddenly he was nearly overcome with a sense of the Holy Spirit prodding him. All of his life he had attended baptism services, and had participated in several - always with the awareness that his own baptism had occurred when his parents had their pastor baptize him as an infant. Now, however, he suddenly had this urgent leading to be baptized. So he was. There, in an impromptu service, the seminary president was RE-baptized, with several of his faculty members and theologians participating, even though they knew better. Over the years a couple of them have talked to me about it, but none have indicated they thought it was especially blasphemous. Rob Staples was on the seminary faculty at that time, but I don't remember whether he was on that trip.

Just because the seminary president did it doesn't make it right, but along the way I suspect it has made me a little more lenient.

[Jamie Wayne]

You're more into the fathers than I am, but in my mind I have a recollection of having read from one of them that in case of emergency, even baptism with sand was an option? Have you read anything to that effect, Jamie?

That's interesting, Hans. I don't recall anything like that, but it wouldn't surprise me, though.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Baptism of Hannah Sophia Young - my granddaughter (http://allthingsnew21.blogspot.com/2008/06/hannahs-baptism.html)

My son-in-law, pastor of the Clinton, Illinois Church of the Nazarene, baptized our granddaughter on June 15th. You can watch a video of it at the link above, and I think David did a fine job of explaining why he and Jessica chose to baptize Hannah. My parents chose dedication for their children, as did my wife and I, but I have no objection one way or the other. I was moved to the tears of a grandfather in being able to see it, even if I could not be there in person.

Mark "Papa" Metcalfe

[Dennis M. Scott]

Mark,

What a beautiful video! Although my memory doesn't bring up as many pictures as yours, you would understand that my mind took a little memory journey, too. Pastors get to rejoice in what the Lord is doing through their former parishioners. I had the privilege of being Jessica's pastor when she was but a child. I watched her blossom into the Christlike servant she is now. Hannah is a blessing to me, as well.
I am reminded not only that His Church is universal, but that to that extent His Family keeps on growing. I've never been to the COTN in Clinton, IL, but I'm sure glad it's there. In a small way, I have investments there. God's Grace reaches around the world, and serendipitously, we get to be a part of that family that has agreed to provide for her.
Great video that demonstrates what both infant baptism and dedication mean. A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Mark Metcalfe]

...my memory doesn't bring up as many pictures as yours... I had the privilege of being Jessica's pastor when she was but a child. ...

Have you had a chance to watch any of the pictures I sent to you?
(I still need to make a copy for Jeremy - and Jeff, if he wants them - send snail mail info.)

Mark

[Jeffrey Sykes]

It would have been nice to have another poll option. "I'm a parent who had my child baptized." I've got two that have been baptized and I still get emotional to think about the fact that God's people think something as helpless as an infant is a significant part of the community and worthy of inclusion.

--JS

[Susan Unger]

Without the water and the rose, what is in the dedication ceremony? Is it mainly a prayer time?

I wonder where I was during all those baptism/dedication ceremonies. I think I was too busy concentrating on are the parents really intending on following through or is this just a ceremony to them, too.

I decided to pay attention during today's baby dedications [4 of them]. Steve just had a prayer time while holding the baby. After each, his wife Missy gave them a card.

Now, I remember my childhood pastor giving out roses. So, I am wondering if he did a lot more baptisms than I realized and not dedications, or if he did the same ceremony for two different events. :fav03 I'll probably go to my grave bugged by this question. I doubt my parents would remember. sigh....

[Jon Bemis]

So how would it be different with a dedication service? And what is the difference between what baptism signifies and does, and what dedication signifies and does?

IMO there are some distinct differences (although I would point out that the two ceremonies are not as distinct as they should be in the Manual.)

1. Baptism is a sacrament, dedication is not.

2. I view baptism as the means by which the Church receives persons into its fellowship and care. Since I believe that infant baptism should be encouraged and practiced, I emphasize this.

3. Baptism is a means of receiving God's grace with all the mystery that I believe is part of a sacramental act.

In my first pastorate in central Arkansas, no infant had ever been baptized prior to my arrival. This was in a church that was founded in 1937. When I left 8 years later, most infants were baptized, with an occasional dedication.

In my present church, no infants have been baptized as far as anyone can recall. I have been teaching a class on the articles of faith, and during it, several said that a previous pastor have openly taught that infant baptism was not legitimate, and had gone as far as to claim that only full immersion was acceptable. We had a really good discussion about it. :basic01