Baptism-- the opposite perspective

Discussion in 'Forum for Polls' started by Alcott, Apr 21, 2009.

?

Which of these do you think should not occur at a baptism?

  1. Baptizer says “..in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

    1 vote(s)
    5.9%
  2. Baptizer says “..in the name of Jesus" [only-- not F,S, and HS]

    10 vote(s)
    58.8%
  3. An ordained minister does the baptizing

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%
  4. An acknowledged spiritual ‘mentor’ does the baptizing

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%
  5. Baptizee is requiree to wear a robe [uniformity]

    12 vote(s)
    70.6%
  6. Photographs are taken

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%
  7. Video recordings are taken

    2 vote(s)
    11.8%
  8. Those “close” to the baptizee are asked to stand

    5 vote(s)
    29.4%
  9. The congregation says “Amen”

    2 vote(s)
    11.8%
  10. The congregation applauds and cheers

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    As the previous poll on baptism got some discussion, but not alot, this is the same poll, but from the opposite perspective-- that is, the question is what practices or associations with baptism do you consider IMproper. The answer options are the same, but each one you choose is what you consider should not be done.

    ed. "requiree to wear a robe" should be "requireD to wear a robe."
     
    #1 Alcott, Apr 21, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2009
  2. SaggyWoman

    SaggyWoman
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,933
    Likes Received:
    8
    What about none of the above?
     
  3. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    That only occurred to me after I had posted the poll. It should be there, but to give the same answers as the other poll, with only word forms changed, there was no room for it. I tried to see if we can just hit 'vote' and have it cast as nothing (like voting "Present"), but that doesn't work.

    I really miss our old poll feature; though I guess it's been 2 years or more since that was scrubbed for this less creative one.
     
  4. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    On the matter of the baptizer saying "...in the name of Jesus [only]..." I'm not sure why no one wants any discussion about this, but both polls indicate [expectedly] that it is not popular among voters here. Is it because of its almost sole association with Pentecostal and Apostolic churches? Is it just plain 'bad' theology? If neither of those answer the objection to it, it can only be concluded that it violates longtime traditions of Protestants and Evangelicals (and Roman Catholics and Easter Orthodox).
     
  5. FriendofSpurgeon

    FriendofSpurgeon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,056
    Likes Received:
    36
    I think the answer is yes, yes, yes.
     
  6. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    Okay. Just wanted to know. I guess it's now official ;) .
     
  7. BigBossman

    BigBossman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    0
    One doesn't need to have a robe to be baptized. To expect one to wear a robe prior to being baptized is silly.

    Usually, the accepted practice is a minister to perform the baptism. However, I have been to a couple of churches where the youth pastor would perform the baptism. I don't think its a requirement, but I'd more or less prefer the pastor to baptise me.

    I've seen it where people have taken photographs / videos of people getting baptized. While I think they mean well, I don't believe that should be brought to church. If the baptism occurs in another setting (a pool or a lake) I don't see a problem with that.


    I remember when I got baptized at the age 12. I was so nervous. The whole time before my baptism I was thinking, "What if the pastor accidentally drops me while he is dunking me under the water?" Of course that never happened.
     
    #7 BigBossman, Apr 24, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2009
  8. FriendofSpurgeon

    FriendofSpurgeon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,056
    Likes Received:
    36
    Me too. I thought my dad was going to keep my under forever!
     
  9. FriendofSpurgeon

    FriendofSpurgeon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,056
    Likes Received:
    36
    I know I'm old school, but I'm not a big fan of clapping or amens or videos, etc. during baptisms. Baptism is one of two sacraments (or ordinances if you prefer), the other being the Lord's Table. We don't clap during communion either.
     
  10. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually it violates clear spiritual commandment. You know, what we are actually commanded by Jesus to do. He told us to Baptize in the name of the "Father Son, and the Holy Spirit".

    The only thing that could justify NOT baptizing in the name of the Trinity, after such a clear command, is Modalistic heresy.
     
    #10 Havensdad, May 2, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2009
  11. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    Then is Acts 2:38 modalistic heresy? Acts 8:16? Acts 10:48? Acts 19:5?

    Where does the idea come from, anyway, that "...in the name of..." is some kind of magic formula? It simply means you are acting in accordance with and in authority of an entity, not yourself alone. A police officer acts in the name of the law, but that doesn't mean he has to say those precise words every time he holds up his palm to signal a car to stop.

    But besides this, is Jesus Christ not the fullness of deity [Colossians 2:9]? If so, how does that deny trinity, assuming that is what is meant by "modalistic heresy?"
     
  12. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Acts 10:48 makes no distinction: it does not say "in the Name of Jesus". The others are not exclusive; they say only that they were baptized in the name of Jesus, not that they were baptized ONLY in the name of Jesus. Jesus said to baptize in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

    Right: the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    But Jesus is speaking of an outward ritual or ceremony. He doesn't say "Let them be baptized": He says "Baptizing them in the name of".

    When a messenger would come from Caesar, to another person, they would say "In the authority of Caesar!" or "In the Name of Caesar!". It was an announcement, letting those know from whom their authority comes. Same thing here.

    But the emphasis is whatever Jesus WANTS the emphasis to be. His emphasis in Baptism, is not the oneness of God, but instead, three persons of the Trinity. Jesus did not say "In the name of the one God". He said "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit": the three persons of the Trinity. Jesus emphasized the Three-ness of personhood in His Baptistic formula...

    And so should we.
     

Share This Page

Loading...