From:  (Ken Smith)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The New Birth.
Date: 11 Nov 1998 01:55:31 GMT

 (Nigel B. Mitchell) writes:

>In <36480941.1140>,
> (St.Athanasius) wrote:

>>Dear Able, g'day and welcome aboard, I feel the numbers against me in
>>this one are going to increase. I have stuck my head out and maybe
>>someone will chop it off.

>Why do you get that impression? So far just about all the posters have
>been on the same side - and that is the same side as you! 

> We may use different language to describe our doctrines, and
>different verses of scripture to justify/ defend them, but most
>Christians since at least the third century have agreed that Baptism
>is an outward sign of the action of God's grace in a person. The
>unbiblical (but nevertheless useful) term 'regeneration' is sometimes
>used in this context. Because Baptism is an outward sign of something
>God does, most Christians also consider it both possible and desirable
>to baptise the children of Christian parents and guardians.

>>>>Epistle of Barnabas..(100AD)."Blessed are they who, placing their
>>>>trust in the cross, have gone down into the water.""We indeed descend
>>>>into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up bearing fruit
>>>>in our heart, having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our
>>>>spirit." p.144, Vol 1, ANF
>>>
>>>Excuse me Greg but are you trying to make a case for baptism by full
>>>immersion? You have me confused. You sound like a revivalist.

>The 'revivalist' mistake is to take the language of "going down to the
>water" etc. literally. I do not think that Greg is making that
>mistake, and nor do most other people. Because Baptism is an outward
>sign of something God does, neither the quantity of water nor the age
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of the participants really matter. Even the exact form of words can be
>varied, although the words contained in Matthew 28:19 "... in the name
>of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" are generally
>considered the ideal words to use. 

At several times in church history various people have insisted that
baptism could only be performed with cold water - whether it was
immersion or some other method.
The argument was that we are supposed to have our bodies washed with
"pure water".
Until a couple of centuries ago heat was regarded as a material
substance, and if you heated the water you were adding something to
it, so that it was no longer "pure".

To my mind, neither the quantity of water, nor the temperature of the
water, nor whether it is "living" or not (i.e., whether it is flowing
or still), nor the mode of baptism, are particularly important.
What is important is that we see it as a sign that God has done
something, and a public recognition of God's actions.

>Why do these discussions always come along when I have a Baptism the
>following Sunday?

>Cheers

>N+

>Nigel B. Mitchell
>

Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith  <> | "God, we know you are in charge, but why
Department of Mathematics,         |  don't you make it slightly more obvious?"
The University of Queensland,      |        Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 1990
St Lucia, Qld. 4072.  Australia.   |   (address to students at at West Point)