Yes.

Not anti-gospel in all of their ministry work of course. It seems that most of the gospel ministry in Australia is being done by infant baptists, and many of those I know and trust are. But I believe they betray all that when they baptise infants.

And I just received my book on new covenant theology today, by Wells and Zaspel (thanks David for the suggestion). :) I’ll post when I’ve finished reading it perhaps.

Dannii Willis - 16 October 2008 03:10 PM

Yes.

Not anti-gospel in all of their ministry work of course. It seems that most of the gospel ministry in Australia is being done by infant baptists, and many of those I know and trust are. But I believe they betray all that when they baptise infants.

And I just received my book on new covenant theology today, by Wells and Zaspel (thanks David for the suggestion). :) I’ll post when I’ve finished reading it perhaps.

Well then Dannii, perhaps instead of making the blanket statement that

Anyone who participates in that baptism service IS anti-gospel

you might have said that “participation in that service is anti-gospel”.
I’d still reject the statement as nonsense, of course, but it least it wouldn’t have had the effect of writing us evil paedo-baptisers off completely!
Bob

Nonsense it may be… but people are inconsistent and hypocritical. If I were to qualify it, I’d probably say that it’s those who lead the service who are anti-gospel. For it’s more than just participation, it’s their understandings and theologies and it rots them to the core. But I should probably stop before I offend 95% of the people here, especially as I must have similarly rotten beliefs.

Dannii Willis - 16 October 2008 05:49 PM

Nonsense it may be… but people are inconsistent and hypocritical. If I were to qualify it, I’d probably say that it’s those who lead the service who are anti-gospel. For it’s more than just participation, it’s their understandings and theologies and it rots them to the core. But I should probably stop before I offend 95% of the people here, especially as I must have similarly rotten beliefs.

From a non-baptised ‘believer’.  Did you use the word ‘hypocritical’?

Dannii Willis - 16 October 2008 05:49 PM

If I were to qualify it, I’d probably say that it’s those who lead the service who are anti-gospel. For it’s more than just participation, it’s their understandings and theologies and it rots them to the core.

Ah I feel so much better now—my congregations are okay, it’s just me who is rotted to the core!  At least I’m in good company: Calvin, Luther, 2000 years of faithful, Bible believing Christians . . .
Bob

Well I’m just assuming your congregations are ignorant ;)
And yes, I blame Calvin for this.

From a non-baptised ‘believer’.  Did you use the word ‘hypocritical’?

How am I being hypocritical? I’m trying to act consistently both with my understanding of baptism and faith.

Dannii Willis - 16 October 2008 06:38 PM

And yes, I blame Calvin for this.

Poor old Calvin.  He gets blamed for a lot of things that he didn’t start.  Anyway, rather than occupy this thread any further perhaps we could move this discussion to the infant baptism thread.

Dannii Willis - 16 October 2008 06:38 PM

Well I’m just assuming your congregations are ignorant ;)
And yes, I blame Calvin for this.

From a non-baptised ‘believer’.  Did you use the word ‘hypocritical’?

How am I being hypocritical? I’m trying to act consistently both with my understanding of baptism and faith.

How are congregations who practice infant baptism hypocritical?  They are acting on their understanding of baptism and faith.  It seems odd that someone who refuses to be baptised would make such outlandish statements.

If you believe that baptism is for adults only, then surely your position is a little hypocritical.  Besides that, you seem quite comfortable in making judgments on the welfare of a person’s soul based on their theological position.  Those who judge must be willing to be judged accordingly.

I won’t say anything more now, except that I have not meant that anyone’s salvation is in danger by what they believe about baptism.

My presence in the Anglican Church comes after over 40 years in Churches of Christ where there was a fairly non-negotiable view about Baptism - it had to be by immersion, but unlike the Greek Orthodox it also was only available to those old enough to choose it for themselves (generally described as adults, but I was 10 when I was baptised by immersion).

While I think the Anglican church and those others like it would maintain that infant baptism is a complete and valid baptism, it also acknowledges that it should be followed up with Confirmation when the infants are old enough to own the faith that their parents have promised to bring them up in.

Some years ago I came to the view that God was less interested in the mode of Baptism than in what was happening in the hearts of the people called into the Way.  Thus my transition into the Anglican Church was not as frought with dissonance as might have been expected.

Having lived on both sides of the Baptismal divide I would like to respectfully suggest to Dannii that the kind of “rot” described can be found on both sides, although I think rather rarely.  For the most part, those charged with the responsibility of baptising do so fully aware of the mysteries they are part of as people go through a ritual by which they die to self and rise to new life in Christ.

John, the issue is that for many of those who do baptise infants it is no longer a ritual about dieing to self and rising to new life in Christ. It is instead more about an initiation into the people of God. The rot I speak of is Covenant Theology.

The 1662 Prayer Book which Sydney upholds affirms the regeneration of the child after baptism.......when the Church of England in South Africaa drew up thieir new Prayer Book they struck this out.

What is wrong with Covenant theology, Dannii?  It has a profound basis in Scripture, and indeed each time we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, do we not say “This is my blood of the new covenant?”

Covenant Theology is about the “Covenant of Grace”, not the New Covenant… it is a supposed extra-Biblical covenant and I believe it seriously confuses people about the real Biblical covenants. It reduces them to being mere expressions of this Covenant of Grace, rather than being the wonderfully amazing promises God made to real people.

Hi Dannii
I’ve never heard Covenant theology described in quite those terms.  I’m so intrigued I’ve started a new Covenant Theology thread.  I look forward to your contribution!
Bob