68 thoughts on “Our Daily Thread 1-3-18”

  2. 😦 It’s too early to deal with this. But I still haven’t heard an explanation of I Cor. 7:14 that is satisfactory.

    And I am convinced that Baptism does not make a person a Christian. a Christian is baptized.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  3. A couple follow-up thoughts from yesterday and the Lutheran position on Baptism.
    From the LCMS site, “Baptism is not the means of salvation but rather the means of grace. The Bible tells us that such “faith comes by hearing.” Jesus Himself commands Baptism and tells us that Baptism is water used together with the Word of God. Because of this, we believe that Baptism is one of the miraculous means of grace (another is God’s Word as it is written or spoken), through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person’s heart (see Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12.13). Terms the Bible uses to talk about the beginning of faith include ‘conversion’ and ‘regeneration.’ Although we do not claim to understand fully how this happens, we believe that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. We believe this because the Bible says that infants can believe (Matt. 18:6) and that new birth (regeneration) happens in Baptism (John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6). The infant’s faith cannot yet, of course, be verbally expressed or articulated by the child, yet it is real and present all the same (see Acts 2:38-39; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15). The faith of the infant, like the faith of adults, also needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word, or it will die. Lutherans do not believe that only those baptized as infants receive faith. Faith can also be created in a person’s heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God’s (written or spoken) Word.”

    6 Arrows, our Pastor and his wife suffered the loss of an unborn daughter this past summer. Baptism has been a recurring discussion in our adult Bible class for the past two years. As is mentioned above, the spoken Word also creates faith and he finds comfort in the fact that, even in the womb, his daughter heard the Word.

    Roscuro, Per the explanation above, Baptism is not a means of salvation but rather a means of grace and baptized children aren’t considered holy but rather God has created faith in their heart.

    One of the things I love about being Lutheran is that we realize that there are aspects of God, grace, and salvation that we cannot comprehend. One of them is that we cannot accept salvation, but we can reject it. A favorite Pastor used to say, “I wouldn’t want a God whom I could understand.”

    Donna – LOL on the “so” comment.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  4. Chas, again, not to try to persuade you or change your mind, but rather to just give you the Lutheran explanation, this is from a Bible study by a Pastor.
    “The noun “sanctification” (ἁγιασμός) occurs only a handful of times in the New Testament, but its meaning is elucidated by the more frequent verb “sanctify” (ἁγιάζω) and the very frequent adjective “holy” (ἅγιος). Sanctification continues to mean “separation for God’s use” and “belonging exclusively to God,” often with the implication that the sanctified reflects this relationship in its own character (e.g., the lamb for offering was to be spotless). As with Old
    Testament usage, the New Testament can describe the sanctification of ritual objects, such as gifts for sacrifice (Matt. 23:17, 19). Even unbelieving spouses are “sanctified” (made acceptable marriage partners) by their contact with their holy Christian spouse (1 Cor. 7:14). Marriage and food are sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Tim. 4:4–5).”

    If you’re bored and want to read the entire study on “Sanctification,” it’s here: file:///C:/Users/lshaffer/Downloads/Circuit_Winkle_Studies-April-Participant.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. I usually don’t enter into discussions of baptism, but that Lutheran explanation seems to go in circles.

    “Baptism is not the means of salvation but rather the means of grace.” Paul tells us salvation is by grace, through faith. So to me, that Lutheran explanation says that baptism leads to salvation. Which means the decision of the parents gets the child saved. No, as Chas said, Christians are baptized. So unless there is actual evidence of a change in a person, then no baby should be baptized. Yes, John the Baptist was “saved” in the womb, but that is a rare exception. In fact, that is the only time ever that the Bible tells us of a baby being saved.

    Also, this: “Jesus Himself commands Baptism.” Does Jesus command baptism? I just did a word search at biblegateway.com and find no reference to such a claim. The apostles commanded it in Acts, but not Jesus.

    We need to be careful what we say the Bible says, when what we say is not found in Scripture.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  6. I couldn’t open the link Linda, But I think I understand “sanctification’. My parents were Pentecostal and believed there were three steps (for lack of a better word this morning) in the Christian life.
    Saved
    Sanctified
    Filled with the Spirit.

    I believe every Christian is sanctified and has the Holy Spirit. Every Christian, born of God, has God’s Spirit. I do believe there are different manifestations and gifts.

    And my difficulty with I Cor. 7:14 hinges on what Paul meant by “clean” and “holy” WRT babies.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  9. I have genealogical roots in Prince William County . . . had I known you were going there, I could have sent a list of things to look up . . . 🙂

    Son #1 family returns this morning, Stargazer heads back to Seattle tonight and then everyone will be back where they belong and real life can begin again.

    I started yesterday.

    Bible study got off to a crazy beginning. We were locked out and had to wait for Doris, an 83 year-old member to show up with a key. When she arrived, everyone got out of their car and Elaine slipped and fell.

    While Doris and the rest tried to get the door open, I tried to help Elaine up, but she was too much for me.I suggested I run into church to get a chair, she (a retired nurse) agreed.

    Rounding the corner to the door, I discovered Doris had opened it, but they couldn’t figure out how to turn off the alarm.

    They’d punched in the code, but something hadn’t worked. The siren was screaming, eight of us looked at each other, and I saw the alarm had a note advising a phone number to call in a false alarm.

    My phone, of course, wouldn’t just start, but I eventually got the call through where I was put on hold.

    What about Elaine?

    Who was that in the black truck that pulled up and parked in a corner of the lot facing us?

    The alarm company answered and wanted not only the passcode but the password.

    Blank faces.

    But then Inez smiled and said, “it’s grace.”

    “Grace is the password?”

    “That’s it,” said the voice on the phone. “Thank you.”

    Here comes Elaine! 99 year-old Jo, who weighs about that much now, figured out a way for Elaine to lean on the car grille and stand up. She’s fine, just embarrassed.

    We all laugh and enter the church.

    But that man is sitting in his black truck under the trees, wearing dark glasses and holding his phone. I’ve been watching too much Monk. I closed the door and did NOT unlock it.

    Bible study went well.

    When I reported in to the pastor about what happened, he laughed, particularly when I told him about fearing the man in the truck. “That’s what Jack [an elder] said when he walked in!”

    Turns out the man was there for an appointment with the pastor but scared a whole bunch of us by stoically sitting in his car. I was congratulated for being careful, but the Monk reference made the pastor roar with laughter.

    We’ll be studying the Sermon on the Mount next–and no one will forget the passcode or password if we ever need it again! Perhaps we need a refresher, too, on welcoming strangers? 🙂

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

  11. Peter, in terms of Jesus commanding baptism, are you forgetting the Great Commission?

    Also, I disagree with Lutherans that baptism saves–I would likely be a Lutheran today if not for that belief, since I studied doctrine a bit before I made the jump from Baptist. However, just as believing Jews did not wait for faith in their child to circumcise that child as a sign of faith, so we Christians do not wait for faith in the child to baptize that child–those who do wait to baptize being a real historical anamoly (sp?) within the church. Baptism is a sign of being within the covenant community, though it neither saves nor guarantees salvation.

    I myself was baptized, by immersion, as a child of five, but it was believer’s baptism. I thus am “covered” to everyone’s satisfaction but those of Baptists who only accept the baptism within a Baptist church. (We ran into a few such churches in my childhood, but Mom always convinced them that the church in which I was baptized was in fact Baptist in everything but name. They were congregational, KJV only, believer’s baptism, dispensational, sending all their young people off to Bob Jones, with watch night services that showed “Thief in the Night” and I think a bus ministry. Technically they weren’t Baptist, but for all practical purposes they were.)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  12. I hear that Charleston, SC is in for about six inches of snow.
    NancyJill knows what six inches of snow does in SC.
    It’s going to be like three feet of snow in Annandale, Va.
    If they are fortunate, the sun will melt it quickly.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  14. As far as baptism: I studied it much before having our eldest baptized as an infant. Doing so right away would have been what I grew up to believe. I no longer knew if I believed that, so wanted a chance to dig deeper. We did have her baptized when she was about a year old. We also had our others baptized as infants. One has been baptized again by immersion.

    Our church has one day in the summer where anyone who wants to be baptized by immersion can be at a local beach. I feel no need to do so.

    Our church is quite schizophrenic about baptism having recently called a man who is Baptist to pastor a Lutheran congregation. He recognized this and held what he said would be a ten minute meeting on the subject. I was shocked to think anyone thought such a subject could be dwelt with in a short amount of time. I found I was in a minority.

    I do see baptism as the new circumcision. In that, infants were placed in a special way in God’s family. Other’s were, too, and God considered it important enough to almost kill Mose’s sons. I believe baptism places children in a special way also. How? I don’t know. I do not believe they go to hell without it, however, or are saved with it.

    I also found it interesting that our pastor says that baptism doesn’t save, yet was going to baptize a woman with immersion, because she was worried about being saved. If it doesn’t save, why should that give her comfort. Better to use scripture to point her to the truth.

    I also do not know how we know people are saved just because they recite the right answers to certain questions? Anyone can say anything and it means very little. When do children become saved? When do they really understand? I cannot even say in my own life with certainty. I sure do know different steps, prayers and understanding, but the actual moment when I was born again? No. I know, without any doubt, I am.

    Our church still has confirmation (for how long, I am not sure) which is also confusing, since that is a rite (and not biblically mandated) to confirm one’s baptism. Interesting, that my one daughter who was not confirmed (due to church changes and too long to deal with here) is the one who was immersed. Her children are not baptized at this point, but will be when they decide. That is the decision of her and her husband.

    Another issue is that of dedication. We never see that for babies in the New Testament except in the OT law being fulfilled.

    I agree with Chas in this: it is a big, big subject.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  15. I was in a deep sleep this morning when I woke up and realized it was time (a little past time) to get up already. And it’s only Wednesday. Why do “short” weeks sometimes feel so long?

    Oh, but I get to go “out” to lunch today, meaning I’m walking next door to Denny’s to meet a friend.

    Frustrating call last night from Carol who went out and spent all her money again for the month, all of it, and bought a new phone which she’s been dying to do for months. The man at church who was so good to buy her the other phone in the summer I’m sure had no idea she’d only keep it for 6 months. I feel bad about that, but that’s Carol. Still, I maybe should have tried to discourage him at the time for buying her one. I’m sure he’ll never do that again. She also told me she wouldn’t be able (obviously) now to pay me the money she’s owed me since November. Nor can she pay the man from church some additional money she owed him. But oh well …

    She sounded absolutely giddy, high as a kite, she was so happy and excited about her new phone and nothing else really mattered, including the fact that (as usual) she was flat broke for the month of January on Jan. 2.

    I cut it short, told her I had to go tend to the laundry and other things and that I’d talk to her tomorrow. She could tell I was miffed. I don’t care about the money she owes me and don’t ever expect to see it (I rarely make her promise to pay me back for anything I’ve given to her but this time I did and she agreed, $30, she promised over and over to pay it back). I’d rather she focus on paying the man from church the money she owes him. But he’ll be out of his money too, most likely, though I think he’s figured that out by now.

    She’s been coveting a new phone for months now and I kept telling her, no, her friend from church bought her a perfectly good phone and it would hurt his feelings if she got “rid” of it this fast. Then, mysteriously, she told me there were cracks and scratches all over the phone’s screen so now she’d have to replace it. She had no idea how that happened. But, of course, that made it necessary to replace the phone, right?

    I’m at a loss for what to make of her sometimes. She’s a mentally ill professing believer who appears to have very little conscience sometimes.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  16. Someone at the dog park is pondering a move this year to SC. Taxes apparently are lower, especially property taxes. Even with Prop 13, property taxes are hefty her in California and, of course, go up every year. Mine have nearly doubled in the time since i’ve had this house. If it weren’t for Prop 13, which at least limits the amount by which they can go up each year, I wouldn’t be able to afford a house at all, of course.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  17. Re the discussion of baptism and ‘how do we know’ if one is saved, we don’t, ultimately. Only God knows the heart and it is perfectly possible for someone to be baptized, a church member, child or adult, and recite all the right things and still not be born again.

    Like

    Reply

  23. Shortly after my debut, I was apparently dedicated at the Hollywood Baptist church.

    The Presbyterian view sees baptism as something we do (believing parents of infants or individuals) out of obedience. It’s the first thing one should do after becoming a believer. We see families with infants as all under God’s covenant of grace, though that does not mean an infant who is baptized is or will become a believer. Just as infants were circumcised in the OT, they are included in the sign of baptism under the NT.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  24. We can have assurance we are God’s children once we are born again (though that may not be an experience all can point to on a calendar), but we cannot always know if others are (though the fruit of their lives gives a pretty good indication).

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  26. Public school. After Christmas break began, I checked son’s scores on their power school site. He had two solid F’s and some D’s and some A’s.. Definitely would be paying for the Spanish course (online course) that he had flunked. And definitely would not be playing baseball as per their rules. Husband received an email from the IDLA people for the online courses with the final final grade for Spanish: 49. Sounds like an F to me. This morning, I looked at the power school site and found he had no F’s. The Spanish had gone up to a 60. Okay, educators, tell me how that happens. I smell a rat. They need him to field a baseball team and sports is big here.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  29. I posted this early this morning on yesterday’s thread:
    “Doing the believers baptism felt right to me. I was sprinkled at age twelve and remembered thinking I was suppose to feel like a different person when that happened, but I felt no change. It was not a rebellion. I was just not saved. An infant is not able to have those realizations. They are not saved by baptism. They are saved by the grace of God. I remember when David lost his and Bathsheba’s infant baby and took consolation that he would one day see it again. That note in the Bible has reassured me on the question about babies who die going to to heaven.”

    Like

    Reply

  30. Baptism: my understanding is that we were dead in our sins. When Life entered us in form of the indwelling Holy Spirit, that is our baptism into Life. The water one is simply an external memorial of the work of the Spirit.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  31. Oh snow in SC! While at Clemson we did have an event such as that and it didn’t go well for many South Carolinian drivers 😬 Just stay home…that’s what we did during that fun time of snow in the south ⛄️ (it melted quickly but we did make a snowman with the kids!)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  32. Considering the verse that Linda offered, it says”… the water is a picture of baptism which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body. But as a response to God from a clean conscience…” That being the case, can a young baby possibly understand what a clear conscience is? Logically, I think not. Your verse, Linda, reinforces my feelings about baptism.

    Like

    Reply

  33. A pine tree limb just cracked and dangled outside our villa. It is covered in frozen precip. We dare not go outside. Everything is encased in ice at Hilton Head. Two years ago everything was messed up because of the hurricaine. Last year was the warmest and wonderful for hiking the only year we have been able to hike in ages. This year is the coldest and oddest. Only once have we seen a few snow flurries here. Even so we still love if here.

    Art was snoring when the tree limb fell. I got all excited and woke him with the news. I expect more limbs down, and we are considering what we need to cook before losing power.

    Like

    Reply

  35. Janice, can a baby understand circumcision?

    The biggest difference between infant baptism and believer’s baptism is basically the understanding of covenant. Believer’s baptism works well with an American understanding of things, because we are all about individual choice. But Scripture has more of a covenant, and communal, understanding. The family is important, and the church family (believing Israel in the Old Testament) is important; we are brought into the community of faith. We are covenant members of the body, and we are marked by the covenant.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  39. Janice, I’m not a Greek scholar (but I do know a guy), however, many translations do not render that section as you quoted it. Many say “an appeal to God for a good conscience,” “the guarantee of a good conscience before God,” or “the mark of a good conscience toward God.”

    Also, in context, “corresponds to this” refers to the previous verse that says, “in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.” Then, “baptism, that corresponds to this…”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  40. Circumcision is for boys so I have trouble relating it to baptism. An infant suffers when they are circumcised A friend chose not to have her son circumcised for that reason. The baby has a physical sign of circumcision. With infant baptism, the baby hardly feels anything and has no difference to their body. I am just trying to reconcile baptism to circumcision and I have difficulty doing that.

    I am curious since our son was baptised after he was a few months old in a PUSA, and I was not a true believer at the time, does that mean his baptism does not count? He does not feel the need to have another baptism. Just wondering.

    Like

    Reply

  41. One baptism is sufficient, we never “re-baptize” folks when they join our church.

    Interesting note from the Ligonier Ministries folks in my email today:

    We live in a world that needs awakening.

    This was Dr. Sproul’s passion, and in the final years of his life, he was constantly in prayer for awakening. He prayed and labored to see nonbelievers and the church itself awakened to the true character of God. He wanted to see the whole world filled with the knowledge of the glory of God (Hab. 2:14). So vital is this concern to Ligonier Ministries that we decided to commit the entirety of our 2018 National Conference to the theme of awakening.

    Prior to his hospitalization and before he went home to be with the Lord, R.C. oversaw the writing of a letter that you will receive in the next week. Little did he know how soon he would be fully awakened to the glory and grace of God as he passed into the presence of his Savior.

    It is so fitting that in God’s providence, R.C.’s last monthly letter to you would be on the topic of praying for awakening. As we begin this new year of ministry, I’m thankful that we can do so with a letter from R.C. and a free booklet to help us pray for the awakening that he so earnestly desired to see.

    The booklet you will receive is divided into four areas of prayer focus, each with an accompanying Scripture verse, all to the end of praying for God to move mightily in His church and to bring the light of the gospel to this darkened world. Will you join with us in praying for the Spirit of God to convert many people to Christ and to renew in His church a zeal for His truth, for spiritual growth, and for missions?

    If you want to get started now with your family or church, January’s prayer focus is divided like this:

    Week 1: Pray for yourself and your family. Pray that you would know the riches of your salvation in Christ and that your family would too. “Having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints.” (Eph. 1:1)

    Week 2: Pray for your neighbors, church, and coworkers. Pray that your local church’s good works would shine as a light to your community. “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.” (Matt. 5:14)

    Week 3: Pray for your city and nation. Pray that your nation would abandon its idols and worship the one true God. “Ascribe to the LORD, O families of the peoples, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength!” (1 Chron. 16:28)

    Week 4: Pray for the world and the global church. Pray that God would provide opportunities for the gospel to penetrate unreached people groups. “At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ.” (Col. 4:3)

    When just two men—Paul and Silas—prayed, the earth itself shook (Acts 16:25-26).

    Be on the lookout for this free discipleship resource. And if you need additional physical or digital copies, we’ll make those available soon and let you know how to request them.

    The encouragement of our brothers and sisters in Christ from around the world over the past few weeks has helped energize all of us at Ligonier during this season of loss. We are eager, by God’s grace, to press forward with the mission that R.C. entrusted to us.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  42. Absolutely never, ever a need for a second baptism (Lutheran theology, of course). The reasoning is that it was God’s work, not the church’s or the Pastor’s. That assumes that the original was a baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of course.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  44. Janice, you’ve actually shown several excellent points of connection. Indeed, circumcision is only for boys, and as a sign of the covenant it is for Jewish boys, and as a sign of the covenant there is blood and pain involved. But Christ has given us a new covenant, a covenant in His own blood; we don’t need to shed our own or that of our sons or our beasts. Further, this covenant is with believers of every nation, men and women alike. The covenant is broader, not narrower. (Excluding the children–who were included in the first covenant–would make it in that way narrower. It is now available to Gentiles and to women, but no longer to their children?)

    Like

    Reply

  45. No offense, Linda. But Luther and the other reformers made a mistake in keeping infant baptism. The Roman Catholic church used it as a proof of civil citizenship, not as a mark of a true believer. I don’t think the Bible writers ever meant that all infants needed to be baptized. So a second baptism is necessary when a person, like myself, who was baptized as an infant, later becomes a believer. As I said, John the Baptist is the rare exception of a baby believing. In fact, I think he is the only one.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  46. I had wanted to be baptized in the Jordan River as Jesus was as a symbol of my devotion to following Him. That did not happen, but that was one part of my reasoning in desiring to be immersed.

    Like

    Reply

  47. Peter, none taken. But I think you prove the opposite. The fact that there’s no dispute about it up through the reformation seems to point to it having always been practiced and, thus, instituted by Jesus, Himself.

    Like

    Reply

  49. Linda, 2:32 and ‘re-‘ baptizing — Presbyterian theology as well 🙂 We acknowledge Roman Catholic baptisms as well, by the way, as the words said during the rite, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are central.

    Like

    Reply

  50. Public School: seems it was my mistake. I was reading the first quarter. He still has two F’s and cannot play baseball. They thanked us for being involved and mentioned wishing other parents were. But I suspect some just wish we would go away. I did notice that son has almost all male teachers this semester. That may help.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  51. The fact that infant baptism was not disputed until the reformation only shows that the RC church was the only authority. Anyone who disagreed was shunned as a heretic, and burned at the stake or otherwise punished severely. When there is only one authorized “church” then whatever it says is true doctrine is what everyone has to follow or be imprisoned. Read Foxes’ book of Martyrs and see what the so-called true church did in the name of Christ. It all began to go wrong in the 2nd or 3rd Century, and really went off track when Constantine declared Christianity as the state religion. Since it was the law of the land, one had to obey it or be a law breaker. That is part of what got Luther in trouble when he tried to reform the church. He didn’t want to start a new denomination, so he kept some of the traditions, including infant baptism and the state church.

    And Donna- I could not attend your church since it acknowledges Catholic baptism. Lutherans and Presbyterians may not believe baptism is salvation, but Roman Catholics do. Therefore, they follow a works based salvation and are not true Christians. I know, I was baptized at 7 days old and raised Catholic. At 15 I began to follow Jesus. That is when I became a Christian. Later on I was baptized as a believer.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  52. Peter, all else being equal I could wish that Presbyterians would not acknowledge the baptism of Roman Catholics–but it seems a trivial thing on which to base attendance or non-attendance of a church. I have friends who left our church for a couple of years (I don’t know why they left) but came back a year or so ago, and a big part of the reason they came back was that they couldn’t join the church they were attending–their children would have had to be rebaptized. I could see that as a reason not to attend a church, but not whose baptism they do or don’t accept (in other people, not your own family).

    In the case of infant baptism, though, the entire Church accepts it except Baptistic traditions. It would seem that rather than saying “That’s a Roman Catholic tradition, and so we don’t do it,” that actually the burden of proof is on those who do it differently. It isn’t simply a RC tradition, nowhere close. I have some sympathy myself for the believer’s baptism position–but it is the minority position and thus the one needing to be “proven,” much in the way there is an extra onus on, say, Seventh Day Adventists not just to say “We know we do it the right way.” Well, all of church history stands against Saturday worship, so the “proof” needs to be fairly compelling and not just “The Catholics do it that way, and they’re wrong.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  53. From our denomination (Orthodox Presbyterian Church)

    https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=106

    _______________________________________

    Question and Answer
    Baptism from another denomination

    Question:
    In a recent leadership class in our church, the discussion arose as to what baptisms would we or do we accept in our church. The answer was given that we would accept any baptism, including Roman Catholic, that was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I was pretty sure that I had the doctrine down pat, and recall being taught by this very church that we would only accept baptisms done in churches considered to be based in true belief. This is to say that the baptism would be recognized for those from believing households only. What is the OPC position or understanding of this issue? Do you know of a written treatment of this subject? I am very willing to be convinced otherwise, but for now I see this as another of the increasing number of tattered edges in the church.

    Answer:
    It is generally the practice of the OPC to accept Roman Catholic baptism as fulfilling the requirement for baptism. The reasoning behind this practice is that the sanctity of the ordinance does not depend on the character of the person performing the baptism. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way: “The grace exhibited which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit and the word of institution” (27:3). Also see Matthew 10:8, in which Jesus gave authority to the 12 disciples to heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead, etc. Judas was one of them and doubtless performed these wonders. Yet he was an apostate. (See John 12:12 and Acts 1:25.) These miraculous works in Jesus’ name were not negated by Judas’ defection.

    There are some in the OPC who question RC baptism on the basis of the Roman Catholic belief in baptismal regeneration. So, as a matter of conscience, the session or the applicant for membership might call for re-baptism. However, I know of no instances that I can quote, and I’m unaware that the question has come to any General Assembly for adjudication. Moreover, it is my guess that the OPC and the PCA are of one mind on the matter. Let me know if you have information to the contrary of which I am not aware.
    __________________________________________

    Like

    Reply

  54. Another article

    http://theaquilareport.com/rebaptism-turning-a-pastoral-dilemma-into-a-teaching-opportunity/

    ___________________________________________

    The theology of baptism suggests that rebaptism in instances where a valid baptism has already occurred runs counter to the symbolic nature of the sacrament itself. The confessional prohibition on rebaptism is well-founded and ought to be observed. But here, of course, pastoral considerations must not be ignored. Pastors and elders do not wish to squelch the zeal of new church members and converts and the temptation to grant requests for rebaptism is sometimes strong. The irony here is that in acceding to such requests the pastor or session squanders a tremendous pastoral opportunity to teach about the true significance of baptism and the grace we have in Jesus Christ. Also, the rebaptism of some will inevitably cause others to doubt the validity of their infant baptism.

    “The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person.” (WCF 28.7) …
    ______________________________________________

    Like

    Reply

  55. I was baptized as a baby, but when I became a believer I was baptized again when I was in college.
    Having been baptized, I did not feel a need to join the others when we were in Israel at the Jordan river.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  56. My comment that we cannot really know who really is a believer (except as we watch a life and see real fruit) is that church leaders do think that as long as one takes their course or speak certain words or answer certain questions, they are believers and are, therefore, allowed to be baptized.

    I was raised Catholic, also, and do believe one can be a Christian and be in the Catholic church. I do know people who are. I do agree it is works based, in general, as are many Protestant churches, although they do not believe it of themselves.

    As far as horrible things the early church did, there is plenty of horror to go around. To study all the heresy charges, trials etc. is eye-opening.

    I am glad I can rest in Christ and not worry over having all the right answers about everything.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  57. Jo, my former Pastor’s MIL went on a trip to Israel and chose not to be baptized in the Jordan partly because she said there are big rats in the river. When I heard that, I was glad I had been baptised at church.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  58. Believer’s baptism is the issue with Baptists.
    Baptism by immersion is practiced because that is what “baptism” means. That is obviously the way Jesus was baptized. And it is a symbol. Most pastor’s when baptism goes through these motions.
    He might ask for a testimony. Not always. I wasn’t.
    He then says, “Upon your confession of faith in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, I baptize you my brother (name) in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”
    Then he says “Buried with Christ in baptism”
    He then immerses the person completely, but only momentarily
    And says “Risen to walk in newness of life.”

    That, after all, is what baptism is about. You don’t say that to a baby.
    And since a baby can’t make a decision, he is not part of the observation.
    What I’m saying here is that infant baptism has no meaning.

    Peter is right. Anabaptists (baptize again) existed throughout church history. But they were often persecuted. Even by Lutherans during the reformation. ,

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

  59. More good discussion on baptism today, I see.

    Linda, one of our pastors lost a daughter, too — through stillbirth, I believe — years ago, when he was pastoring somewhere else. I heard that long ago, and, IIRC, I think his wife spoke of that baby as being one she knows she will see in heaven.

    A friend of mine who suffered two miscarriages, one of them a set of twins, before any of her now three children on earth were born, said the same thing your pastor did: that she was comforted in the knowledge that her pre-born babies heard the spoken Word of God in the womb.

    This is probably late to start another tangent of this subject, but perhaps this discussion will carry into tomorrow. (If not, that’s okay too.)

    I firmly believe my miscarried babies are in heaven, for reasons I explained yesterday with that example I gave of a woman who’d miscarried and wrote in to a magazine wondering whether her baby was in heaven. My best friend has also had two miscarriages, and she (a member of my church) finds comfort, among other verses, in the passage Janice mentioned about David and Bathsheba’s child dying before the eighth day, and David’s realization that he would see his baby again.

    And there is comfort, as well, in the knowing that unborn babies of believers have heard the Word.

    The thing I wonder about is something I heard one time at a pregnancy counseling center. Our synod opened a new center in my general area many years ago, and members of our church were encouraged to go to their grand opening.

    I did just that.

    We were given a tour of the facility, and I remember a video playing. The video was intended to minister to post-abortive women, I believe. (Or at least a part of it was.)

    Someone on the video said something like, “Your aborted baby is in heaven.”

    And then the person giving us the tour said something to the effect of, “Well, we don’t actually know that [aborted babies go to heaven]” …

    I didn’t know what to think of that (both the pronouncement on the video, and the assertion of the tour guide). It does really get me to think, though.

    If we can derive comfort (and assurance) that an unborn baby of a Christian parent — a baby who died in the womb — is in heaven due to having heard the Word before death, then what about the miscarried or aborted babies of those who did not hear or read aloud the Word during the pregnancy?

    Does God distinguish between the babies of believers and those of unbelievers when they die in the womb?

    I’d have to say that I don’t believe so. I think it comes back to “God wants all men to be saved…” and that no one’s salvation is determined by what might be another one’s sinful act that snuffs out the life of the pre-born child.

    I can sort of understand that tour guide’s reluctance to say, “Yes, it’s true, your aborted baby is in heaven,” or even to say nothing to counter what was said to that effect on the video, because we don’t want to encourage someone who may come in and feel like it’s the end of the world, this unplanned pregnancy, feeling like the only solution is abortion, and then, in effect, send a message that implies that your baby will go to heaven if you do abort …

    But I do think our first priority has to be faithfulness to Scripture, and that we need to leave however people act on their beliefs to God.

    Thoughts?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  60. Chas, interestingly I have heard all my life from Baptists that that is what the word “baptism” means . . . but I have heard otherwise since I have left the Baptists. So I rather think that isn’t a conclusive argument for either side because apparently we don’t actually know what the word means!

    Also, we don’t know that Jesus was immersed. We know He walked down into the water, but not what was done at that point. If John the Baptist was baptizing large numbers of people, it would have been physically demanding to immerse them all, and he may well have instead poured or sprinkled water over them with a cup, his hand, or another instrument. The concept that immersion signifies burial doesn’t match burial in Jesus’ day–putting bodies in a cave rather than underground.

    In other words, most of the reasons for immersion that I heard as a child aren’t nearly as strong an argument as I was taught, and at this point I think mode of baptism is a non-issue. (I myself was immersed.) And rebaptizing someone who was baptized as a believer, but just not immersed, definitely makes no sense to me.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  63. I went to a special-choir practice at church tonight. We don’t really have a “church choir” anymore, but a number of people from our congregation who sing as soloists or ensemble members just whenever. Never the same group. I had volunteered on a use-your-gifts type form that was distributed to the congregation a few months ago to sing in small ensembles where needed. I never heard back from anyone until a couple of weeks ago when I got an email from one of the new worship coordinators, asking me (and others on the email) if we wanted to sing on January 14th. Practices were tonight and next Thursday.

    Normally I wouldn’t be able to practice on a Wednesday because it’s a piano lesson night, but I take off the weeks of seven major holidays, including New Years’ Day week, so I was available for tonight (and will be for Thursday, the 11th, too).

    We are doing a split SATB Epiphany song, and I picked up the music ahead of time and practiced both alto parts. There are four of us altos, and I and one other will be on the Alto 1 (higher) part, and the other two on Alto 2.

    No sopranos showed up tonight! But there are three who will do that, I hear, who weren’t able to be at practice tonight.

    There were quite a few men, so no problem finding enough voices to do upper and lower tenor and upper and lower bass, in addition to the baritone soloist.

    We also got music to two other numbers that we’ll be singing along with the congregation (sometimes with, sometimes just us, to introduce to them vocally).

    It has been a very long time since I’ve sung in a choir — the last time was six years ago when a good friend died and her widower wanted a ladies’ choir to sing at her funeral. Other than that, I haven’t been in a choir since before I became a mother, and my oldest will be 28 this year!

    A very enjoyable time tonight, singing praises with so many talented vocalists. I felt a little intimidated when I saw the list of names on the email — people who have been singing in our church for many years. But once I got singing tonight, I felt really comfortable joining my voice with theirs. Practice went well, and I’m looking forward to next week’s when everybody is there!

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  68. Peter, I don’t think you would naturally symbolize a cave in the side of a mountain by dunking something underwater, as you could conceivably symbolize something actually underground. As far as I can tell, the “buried with Him in baptism” symbolism isn’t from Scripture, but it just sounded good in terms of “well, it has to mean something,” and that sounds as good as anything. I don’t know that we have to figure out what it symbolizes, if Scripture doesn’t tell us; we simply have to obey and do it.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment