Baptism-- the opposite perspective

[Alcott]

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."

 

[SaggyWoman]

What about none of the above?

 

[Alcott]

What about none of the above?

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.

 

[Alcott]

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).

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

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).

I think the answer is yes, yes, yes.

 

[Alcott]

Okay. Just wanted to know. I guess it's now official .

 

[BigBossman]

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.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

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.

Me too. I thought my dad was going to keep my under forever!

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

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.

 

[Havensdad]

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).

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.

 

[Alcott]

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?"

 

[Havensdad]

Then is Acts 2:38 modalistic heresy? Acts 8:16? Acts 10:48? Acts 19:5?

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".

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.

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

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 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 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?"

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.