M A R K  1 v4

John appeared baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance.

The Gospel for the Sunday service is about John the Baptist.

The Collects for Sunday’s service pray that we who are born again by water AND the Spirit; and may we recognise Jesus as your Son and our Lord.

 I have been asked (1)if I believe in infant baptism

                                       (2)have I baptised infants and if so why.
                                       (3)what kind of baptism do I believe in.

I do not believe in infant baptism as I think it un-biblical.

Yes, I have because as an Anglican priest I was morally obliged to do so.  Fortunately this was not in great numbers as my parish did not require it.  But I tried to limit this to parents who were prepared to come to Church before the service. I never included the section which asks if they have repented of their sins. It is hypocrcy to ask two unmarried people that question when they have two children.

At one time. the Church suggested that people planning marriage, could if they wished bring any child they wanted to be baptized.  A sort of two for one.  That didn't last long;perhaps someone realized how irresponsible it was 

I believe in the baptism for believers.  I do however respect the views of those who take a different attitude to me, and trust they will respect my understanding.

Following on from the events recorded in Acts, we find a confession of faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit happen together. Nowhere in the Bible is there a separation.   I believe this means that within Churches we need to have a deeper understanding of baptism and confirmation.  Whilst I have often preached on baptism, I have never been at a service when this has been preached upon by others.

 I think this is very regrettable, especially when people come to a baptism service who do not normally attend Church. It seems to be so essential that they should know exactly what baptism was meant to be. I have been at a baptism service when the name of Jesus and the word ‘Cross’ have not been mentioned once in the sermon. On other occasions there has been a good sermon in the normal course of things, but totally beyond the understanding of the non Church member.

 

Looking at the events recorded in Acts, the normal pattern to becoming a Christian is that someone ‘repents, believes, is baptized, and then receives the Holy Spirit’.  This, however, is not a chronological order.  These are the essential components to becoming a Christian, but God can change the order in which they happen as was the case with Cornelius and the Ephesian believers.

 

It is because Acts and the New Testament do not give a chronology that has lead the overwhelming majority of Christians over the Church’s history to feel that it is right to baptize the children of Christian parents.  However, it is the fact that, in Acts, it is the normal order that has also led some equally sincere and committed Christians to refuse to baptize anyone not old enough to decide for themselves.

 Whilst it may have been the intention that infants being brought for baptism should be of Christian parents, in practice it is now accepted that the infant of any parents irrespective of belief (or none) is accepted.

 Baptism has always been a problem for me.  I have read, listened and pondered hard, but cannot bring myself to accept the case for baptising infants indiscriminately.  I find myself compelled to sympathise with those who believe baptism should be for those who can make a decision for themselves. I do however respect the view of those who are in favour of infant baptism, and hope they will respect mine.

 As an Anglican priest I was morally required to do so, but felt distinctly uncomfortable in doing so.  It still distresses me when I see people coming to a Baptism service showing no respect for the place they are entering, and only being concerned to have their cameras and camcorders ready, without taking an interest in the whole service.  Fortunately for me all that is now over, I can choose which services I take.

 I believe when the Church first decided to baptise infants it was intended to be for the parents of worshipping members.  This can be deduced by the fact that the Canon relating to the subject states, parents and godparents must fulfil their responsibility to bring up the child within the Church, and by their own example. 

 Whatever the practice was in past years, it is now the common practice to accept anyone who requests, without any requirement other than being told to attend on the relevant date. 

 The Church of England liturgy in Baptismal services asks the parents and godparents if they turn to Christ as Saviour and submit to Christ as Lord, and are allowed to affirm without question.  Similarly they vow to bring up the child in the life and worship of the Church, but the falsity of this is shown by the fact that Church congregations do not reflect these promises.  Further, to state ‘this child who has been born again’ is theological nonsense.

 I cannot find any reference in Scripture to babies being baptised.  They were welcomed and treasured, but not baptised.  I accept it has become tradition to do so in  our Churches, but there is the question do we put tradition before Scripture.?

 Baptism is a most sacred act. There is a joint action between God and man. Man repents, God washes sins away and there is then forgiveness and a person can really say they are ‘born again’.  Can a baby have sins to be washed away?

Within Scriptural terms a person is baptised when he/she realises their life can be different and better if Jesus Christ is part of it; they therefore repent of past failures; believe that by His death on the Cross, Jesus Christ became their Saviour, and they promise to follow His teaching for their future life.  How such can be fulfilled by people who never have any intention to attend worship, never read a Bible, never contribute anything in effort or finance to the Church, or really seek to know the Lord, I have yet to understand. 

 I know it is often said to be a means of outreach, but apart from it being wishful thinking, it hardly justifies departing from the true purpose.  If all who have made the promises of the Baptism service and adopted the words used, we would need to build more Churches as they all joined us on Sundays.

 Where we can agree, I think, is that we ALL should have repented of our sins, believed in Jesus, been baptized AND received the Holy Spirit.

 Most of us, I think, can agree on the first three components of the Acts formula, but how many of us feel comfortable in saying that we, personally, have received the Spirit?  Received, that is, in a way that we know it to be true.

 In the Gospel of John, Jesus is stated to have said, ‘unless someone is born of water AND the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God’.  And also, ‘whoever does not believe (in Jesus) is condemned because he has not believed in the Son of God.’

May God's Holy Name be Praised and may God be glorified