The key lies in your own question. The Christian life requires a rebirth, which is a spiritual one ("born again"). It is only symbolized by physical baptism. Hence, if the real rebirth happens, it is not necessary to take part in the symbol. The symbol can be powerful in many other ways, for instance, as a testimony to other individuals. A misunderstanding could arise from assuming that the symbol represents the actual rebirth.

As for the Holy Spirit, you'd have to ask a more specific question. Acts 1:5 describes a particular instance of baptism by the Holy Spirit (and is the basis for the Pentecostal interpretation), but many other passages speak of baptism without this wording - for instance later in Acts 2:38 Peter states "repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins...."

Some clarifying points: the Vatican isn't full of "born agains." Heck, half the "born agains" that I've known couldn't find their bible with both hands. You'll find that, while Vatican support for salvation through baptism (and other works) is easy to find, it's more difficult to support using the actual text of scripture.

Victor, re: "slain in the Spirit..." That's also not typically something that either Pope-followers or "born agains" are into. There are a variety of groups that take part in that sort of thing, including the Four Square Pentecostals and some Charismatics, among others that aren't coming to me off the top of my head. They generally feel that an emotional experience of Christianity is the best thing. If you don't have the feelings, maybe you're not saved? If you can't do healings, or speak in tongues (which is often interpreted as simply random babbling, a la Hellenistic religious tradition of ecstatic utterances -- no scriptural support for that, either), or whatever the miracle of the week is, then maybe you're not saved. There are some very nice people who believe these things, and they do some good things. However, I have a hard time worshiping at the church of "I like to feel..."

Lendaddy

back to your original question:

If you have no intention of raising & guiding your child towards Christ, then do not make a commitment that you have no intention to honor. Because that is what baptism is, a solemn undertaking to guide your child spiritually towards a life in Christ with an equally valid commitment from God towards that child. It is a two-way covenant between the parent and God. Baptism on its own without this commitment by the parent is an empty promise and means diddly-squat for the child.

If your child should become a christian later in life (with or without your influence and that of his grandpa), I believe it does not matter if he is baptized or not. If he then chooses to, he can get himself baptized if he wishes to enter into this special covenant with God.

People generally make too much of public rituals (especially the Roman Catholic church). What really matters is the intention and undertakings that you make in your heart towards the spiritual well-being of your child.

I disagree that you should do it for the sake of grandpa. If grandpa really understand the meaning of baptism, he will understand if you as the parent is reluctant to promise something that you cannot/will not honor.

My 0.02.

Le Roux

Le Roux,

Thanks and that's pretty much how I feel. I'm not "anti" anything, but I'm simply not willing to talk a talk I won't walk for the sake of others inner peace. My son WILL be directed toward religion, but I will not raise him to fake it like so many do. Thanks again for your honest assesment.

I'll put it the way my father in law did: what does it hurt? If for some reason Christianity is the right religion, you've just hedged your bets for cheap.

With all due respect, that is incredibly ignorant. You can't just go through the motions and "hedge your bets". It doesn't work that way.

Yeah, I would hope that an omnipotent being that rules the universe would see right through that...

Mike

Len,
If the above is the case, then why do you apparently feel so anti-(catholic-type) baptism? Is this more about you and grand-dad than about the kid? There is an impression that you don't hold to any particular "brand" of christianity (or maybe even religion), so having this ritual shouldn't really hit any hot buttons (for instance, if your brand did not believe in this ritual). Since the ritual, per se, is meaningless to you, but it's intent is not really different than your own, it would seem not to be a problem. (?) Hence, the apparent conflict between the parent/grandparent.

EDIT: BTW I would stand by my prior posts which go back to your other original question, ie baptism is not man-made (it is biblically based), and is not necessary for salvation or representative of baby dedication, but stands for the rebirth to a new & sinless life. It is most appropriate following an adult decision.

Good questions Peter,

I feel the you basic Christian philosophy is good and should be learned at an early age. I loathe organized religion as a whole(maybe loathe is too strong). That's pretty much it, the ceremonies and other bunk are IMHO creations of organized religion, not products of Christ or his philosophy.

So this sounds like it's between you and the "church"?

If this is the case, can you see a compromise? How about a baby "dedication" rather than a baptism. Or changing the venue to a different "brand" or nondenominational church? Just brainstorming.

When Dinosaurs appear in the bible ( somewhere between " Creation of the Earth " and " Adam & Eve " ) then I would consider it a document that contains ANY fact and would warrant reading above a Fictional level...

That is just my opinion, you are also entitled to have yours..

or are the bones put there to test your faith ???

Dinosaur bones were put on the Earth by Satan to test the faith of the righteous. ;) Am I the only person that reads the story of Adam and Eve as the perfect analogy of Earth and the primordial soup? Could you imagine God trying to tell Abraham about protozoa? It wouldn't have sold as many books, that's for sure.

Don,

Read Job 40 and 41. It describes something that sure sounds like a dinosaur:

Behold, Be'hemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. 16 Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. 17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. 18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. 19 "He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! 20 For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts play. 21 Under the lotus plants he lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh. 22 For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him. 23 Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. 24 Can one take him with hooks, or pierce his nose with a snare?


1 "Can you draw out Levi'athan with a fishhook, or press down his tongue with a cord? 2 Can you put a rope in his nose, or pierce his jaw with a hook? 3 Will he make many supplications to you? Will he speak to you soft words? 4 Will he make a covenant with you to take him for your servant for ever? 5 Will you play with him as with a bird, or will you put him on leash for your maidens? 6 Will traders bargain over him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? 7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons, or his head with fishing spears? 8 Lay hands on him; think of the battle; you will not do it again! 9 Behold, the hope of a man is disappointed; he is laid low even at the sight of him. 10 No one is so fierce that he dares to stir him up. Who then is he that can stand before me? 11 Who has given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine. 12 "I will not keep silence concerning his limbs, or his mighty strength, or his goodly frame. 13 Who can strip off his outer garment? Who can penetrate his double coat of mail? 14 Who can open the doors of his face? Round about his teeth is terror. 15 His back is made of rows of shields, shut up closely as with a seal. 16 One is so near to another that no air can come between them. 17 They are joined one to another; they clasp each other and cannot be separated.

Burnin' Oil's been reading the book like I do.

The above passages don't make alot of sense since dinosaurs and humans never co-existed. You can't "take him with hooks or pierce his nose with a snare" if he has been extinct for 60 millions years.

I've said this before - if you try and use the bible as a literal, historically accurate book, you're going to run into all kinds of problems.

Check your logic and critical thinking at the door of the church on the way in - it will do you no good once you're inside.

Mike

I suggest logic and critical thinking are the only things that make church a reasonable experience. People need to question much of the swill people feed them as religion. People who buy dogma on face value are missing the boat.

If djmcmath chooses to respond to this, I agree with his response. I believe that logic and critical thinking support the existence of God, not the non-existence.

That's probably why most scientists are atheists.

Mike

That's probably why most scientists are not athiests.