nerdanel wrote:On the baptism question...
... Or is there some benefit that inheres regardless of my beliefs or actions?
If it is the latter, then - and I say this only half tongue-in-cheek - it seems that everyone should undergo Catholic baptism as an insurance possibility...which makes little sense. If it is the former, then I feel even more strongly that it is wrong to interfere with human autonomy by forcing a religious ritual on someone too young to consent. A child of suitable age (at least 10+) should make the choice to accept his or her tradition.
I am sympathetic to this argument, Nerdanel ... which is why I make such a lousy Anglican.
Not that people of my generation care two hoots about denominational labels anyway.
But in fairness to those who believe in infant baptism, they see it as a sort of New Testament equivalent to circumcision. You're welcoming the child into the faith, into the family of God. (It's funny watching babies at baptisms. "Who's that man/lady in the white frock? Noooo, I want to stay in Mummy's arms. Oh, wait. Maybe this is OK. I'll just lie here and gaze entranced into their face. Why are they pouring water on my head? No, I don't like that. Wait a minute, perhaps I do."
)
However, I prefer credo-baptism, or believer's baptism, or whatever you want to call it ... it's what the Baptists believe in anyway.
And what their ancestors the Anabaptists died for, back in the 16th century.
It's what I myself had, at the age of 16 - full immersion baptism (I wasn't baptised as a baby ... my dear unwed teenage mum had me blessed by a vicar, God bless her). That kind of baptism is a very powerful and moving experience.
Does that mean I regard fellow Christians who believe in infant baptism - and can support their POV from Scripture - as heretics?
Good grief, no.
There is really meant to be just one baptism, however you do it, whether it's sprinkling or immersion. Roman Catholics who become Anglicans don't have to get re-baptised (it's not like they've switched religion.) Which is why I think that Baptist churches which insist on re-baptism are wrong, actually. Although I can understand why someone who got sprinkled as an infant and then converted as an adult would feel compelled to undergo full immersion baptism, 'cause it's a powerful symbolic act. But I don't think it's necessary. They can regard their adult conversion as a flowering of the sacramental act that was made when they were a baby.
Of course, one can be baptised as an adult and then lose one's faith. I've seen it happen.
Or someone can be a baptised Christian and then act like a complete jerk. I've seen that happen too. In that case, that person needs to stop being a jerk and get right with God. The outward sacrament (whether it's infant or adult baptism) is important but it means nothing without the reality of an ongoing relationship with Him.
Sorry, that was a whole bucket-load of theology.
I haven't read the whole thread.
The discussion on baptism caught my eye, so I shoved my oar in ...
*slinks into a corner*
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal