tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post3631118942615126152..comments2024-03-29T08:14:29.603+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: Evangelism and baptism (again)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-71773473563269573222009-09-11T06:35:55.396+01:002009-09-11T06:35:55.396+01:00On the issue of 'promises', it is importan...On the issue of 'promises', it is important to emphasize that there is also the promise of God to <i>us</i> made in baptism. This is much more important than any notional promises made by us to him.<br /><br />I would go as far as to say that there is a confusion about the two sacraments within Anglican theology, about the balance between our part and God's, as well as in the nature and effect of the sacraments themselves.<br /><br />Regarding Communion, for example, there is a great deal of stress in the Prayer Book on 'preparation' prior to reception, giving the impression that we must deal with the obstacle of sin <i>before</i> receiving the sacrament of Communion. This, however, may remove from our reception of communion an awareness that it is <i>this</i> ("the body/blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee") which removes the obstacle of sin.<br /><br />We need to understand communion and baptism as being basically about the same thing. This therefore means that we should receive communion and baptism in the same frame of mind - as presenting to us the gospel, in and through which we are forgiven and reconciled to God. Baptism emphasizes the death to the old life and the rising to the new. Communion emphasizes the constant feeding on the one who died, whose sacrifice paid for our sins.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-65011808029900238812009-09-10T16:50:00.233+01:002009-09-10T16:50:00.233+01:00Art. XXVII says that the sacrament of baptism is a...Art. XXVII says that the sacrament of baptism is a grafting into the church, as well as an "instrument" of regeneration.<br /><br />Could we not say, that when an infant is baptised the godparents expressly make promises, but implicitly the church family makes promises too? The evangelistic task, then, is to go and "seek for the lost sheep of the House of Israel", the baptised we have let slip from our family.<br /><br />We urge mothers to bring children into the world even when they are unwanted or unloved, because we hope, we trust to God, someone will find them and love them. Mindful of the sanctity of life, we don't punish the baby for its parents. Would this be a model for baptism too, for children the Spirit has "born again"?Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11229411503740325102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-73180790786015204222009-09-10T13:48:16.610+01:002009-09-10T13:48:16.610+01:00On your last paragraph, I think there is a problem...On your last paragraph, I think there is a problem when we understand or view infant baptism (any baptism in fact) as making promises on behalf of someone. I suspect, even among Reformed or evangelical church leaders, that this is the common understanding of infant baptism. <br /><br />But this cant be the proper essential meaning of baptism, and it certainly weakens the baptismal testimony if people think that baptism is basically a parent or parents promising to bring up little Johnnie or Jenny in a Christian way. <br /><br />This is a big problem for parish churches throughout the UK, even evangelical parish churches, because the gospel is hidden or confused with a social rite that some people still cherish.<br /><br />We need to emphasise that some people are entitled to be baptised because of God's promise. This sounds crazy...but some people do have a right, indeed a duty, to be baptised.<br /><br />David SheddenDavid Sheddenhttp://www.itothehills.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-49980658059624420162009-09-10T13:31:37.017+01:002009-09-10T13:31:37.017+01:00John- you're quite right,it is exactly what li...John- you're quite right,it is exactly what liberal sections of TEC do, which means communion replaces baptism as the sacrament that all are invited to as a sign of faith (or not!).<br />Actually suppose it's what swathes of the C of E does too. Either on principle or for fear of seeming exclusive. "Inclusive" church surely can't have people excluded for any reason at all, even lack of faith displayed in baptism. <br /><br />(Please see my email!)Vincent de Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18082123090052059641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-991761881940040402009-09-10T08:46:43.247+01:002009-09-10T08:46:43.247+01:00'Vincent', that reminds me - don't man...'Vincent', that reminds me - don't many sections of TEC encourage 'open' communion, meaning it is specifically offered to the unbaptized?<br /><br />(Any chance of a real name??)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-55215782285834932192009-09-10T06:26:24.850+01:002009-09-10T06:26:24.850+01:00The denigration of baptism or denial of its import...The denigration of baptism or denial of its importance is also a feature of very liberal Anglicanism. Wasn't it a Church of Ireland Bishop who wrote recently of visiting TEC churches in the U.S.A. where no font was visible and being told that as all were welcomed to Communion the font was consequently in a side room because baptism was divisive. He was astonished that the Sacrament which the New Testament sees as being freely available to all who had come to faith in Christ and displaying thereby their membership of the church was being relegated as something ancillary for the few who thought to request it.Vincent de Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18082123090052059641noreply@blogger.com