Poll: Modes of Baptism

[Josh]

I would question your comment MOST anabaptists stayed free of it. And some was handles well. But not much LOL
I think the way I saw Sunday School handles in the groups I knew, it was much more beneficial than harmful.

But the influences are absolutely there. Even when there is merit, just hearing the phrases “more spiritual” sends shivers down my spine. But I am quite biased.

You would have to admit. I guarantee there are far more Mennonites that know Bill Gotherd and folks like that than would ever read a book written by Mother Teresa or the Dali Llama, but of those three, we sure know which lags far behind the other two in charity, wisdom and intelligence.

By numbers, most Anabaptists are OO and explicitly rejected the modernists and the fundamentalists.

[Valerie]

I would question your comment MOST anabaptists stayed free of it. And some was handles well. But not much LOL
I think the way I saw Sunday School handles in the groups I knew, it was much more beneficial than harmful.

But the influences are absolutely there. Even when there is merit, just hearing the phrases “more spiritual” sends shivers down my spine. But I am quite biased.

You would have to admit. I guarantee there are far more Mennonites that know Bill Gotherd and folks like that than would ever read a book written by Mother Teresa or the Dali Llama, but of those three, we sure know which lags far behind the other two in charity, wisdom and intelligence.

By numbers, most Anabaptists are OO and explicitly rejected the modernists and the fundamentalists.

Most are OO? Is that because of OO Amish having up to say 14 children so these extremely large families make up the population #?s? Because at least as often as we got to Holmes, the largest population of Anabaptists the population we observe our & about are not mostly OO I cannot tell whose influenced any of them really-

[Josh]

I would question your comment MOST anabaptists stayed free of it. And some was handles well. But not much LOL
I think the way I saw Sunday School handles in the groups I knew, it was much more beneficial than harmful.

But the influences are absolutely there. Even when there is merit, just hearing the phrases “more spiritual” sends shivers down my spine. But I am quite biased.

You would have to admit. I guarantee there are far more Mennonites that know Bill Gotherd and folks like that than would ever read a book written by Mother Teresa or the Dali Llama, but of those three, we sure know which lags far behind the other two in charity, wisdom and intelligence.

By numbers, most Anabaptists are OO and explicitly rejected the modernists and the fundamentalists.

Most are OO? Is that because of OO Amish having up to say 14 children so these extremely large families make up the population #?s? Because at least as often as we got to Holmes, the largest population of Anabaptists the population we observe our & about are not mostly OO I cannot tell whose influenced any of them really-

By numbers, the majority of plain/conservative Anabaptists are in the OO type of groups.

[Josh]

I have been to one Orthodox baptism and it was an infant. Fully submerged 3x in the name of the Father, Son, & Hy Spirit. It was quite a Holy experience for the baby who then was also anointed with oil and prayed over to receive the Holy Spirit (Chrismation).
Due to the fact I have read early Church writers claim that the Apostles taught to baptize infants I refuse to be dogmatic against it. Literally everywhere the Apostles started Churches, it's been a practice, east & western Christianity, to baptize the infants of Christian parents. That child now is a member of the Church. However, they of course will do Believers baptisms when someone converts to Christianity as a youth or adult. If you become Orthot, they will accept a former baptism as long as it had been in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They will then do the announcing of oil and prayer to receive the Holy Spirit.

Why won’t they accept someone baptised in the name of Jesus?

Paul said to baptise in the name of Jesus in Acts 2:38. Therefore, it seems that either the trinity or the name of Jesus is acceptable.

When the Didache was discovered, it revealed the early church method of immersion but it made allowance for poring when full immersion wasn't possible. It still had to be in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

I honestly don't get the Scriptural support for pouring and Scripture and early Church writings & traditions indicate immersion but allowed for exceptions. There were Protestant denominations that continued to baptize infants even though they left Catholicism.

I honestly don’t get the scriptural support for infant baptism.

[silentreader]

I have been to one Orthodox baptism and it was an infant. Fully submerged 3x in the name of the Father, Son, & Hy Spirit. It was quite a Holy experience for the baby who then was also anointed with oil and prayed over to receive the Holy Spirit (Chrismation).
Due to the fact I have read early Church writers claim that the Apostles taught to baptize infants I refuse to be dogmatic against it. Literally everywhere the Apostles started Churches, it's been a practice, east & western Christianity, to baptize the infants of Christian parents. That child now is a member of the Church. However, they of course will do Believers baptisms when someone converts to Christianity as a youth or adult. If you become Orthot, they will accept a former baptism as long as it had been in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They will then do the announcing of oil and prayer to receive the Holy Spirit.

Why won’t they accept someone baptised in the name of Jesus?

Paul said to baptise in the name of Jesus in Acts 2:38. Therefore, it seems that either the trinity or the name of Jesus is acceptable.

When the Didache was discovered, it revealed the early church method of immersion but it made allowance for poring when full immersion wasn't possible. It still had to be in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

I honestly don't get the Scriptural support for pouring and Scripture and early Church writings & traditions indicate immersion but allowed for exceptions. There were Protestant denominations that continued to baptize infants even though they left Catholicism.

I honestly don’t get the scriptural support for infant baptism.

Paul?

[Josh]

Errrr… Peter.

[Valerie]

Errrr… Peter.

I would follow Jesus on this. He said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. Jesus is infallible.

I met a Ineness Pentecostal pastor in Holmes County. I do not agree with their interpretations and believe they are in error in their teachings about what we discussed. He wasn’t familiar with early Church writings or the Didache etc. All denominations I’ve been a part of for decades would also see them in error. Like Mormons, they are great people.

[Neto]

Most plain people (OO Amish, etc.) never accepted Daniel Kaufman’s book and I’d have to say I am not very inspired by it either. Despite the fact it doesn’t line up with my church’s doctrines, it is still on many of our bookshelves.

Being from a completely different tradition (Dutch Mennonite) I was enthused when I found a copy of Kauffman's book in a used book store here in Holmes County, because I was curious what all "the other anabaptists" believed - Until I started reading it. It's just rolled over Systematic Theology, and I was then EXTREMELY disappointed.

[Valerie]

Errrr… Peter.

I would follow Jesus on this. He said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. Jesus is infallible.

I met a Ineness Pentecostal pastor in Holmes County. I do not agree with their interpretations and believe they are in error in their teachings about what we discussed. He wasn’t familiar with early Church writings or the Didache etc. All denominations I’ve been a part of for decades would also see them in error. Like Mormons, they are great people.

If one believes that Jesus said "On this 'Peter' I will build my church", then Peter's words should be authoritative, not so? Or is Peter authoritative only when it is convenient? Or did the 'head of the church' contradict the Head of the Church. Sounds very Mennonite to me.

Jesus words Matthew 28:19 are authoritative. There was a difference between Johns baptism & Jesus' baptism. The ancient Church baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I didn't know Anabaptists baptize in Jesus only. Interesting. Pouring instead of immersion and in Jesus name only.

[silentreader]

I would follow Jesus on this. He said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. Jesus is infallible.

I met a Ineness Pentecostal pastor in Holmes County. I do not agree with their interpretations and believe they are in error in their teachings about what we discussed. He wasn’t familiar with early Church writings or the Didache etc. All denominations I’ve been a part of for decades would also see them in error. Like Mormons, they are great people.

If one believes that Jesus said "On this 'Peter' I will build my church", then Peter's words should be authoritative, not so? Or is Peter authoritative only when it is convenient? Or did the 'head of the church' contradict the Head of the Church. Sounds very Mennonite to me.

Jesus words Matthew 28:19 are authoritative. There was a difference between Johns baptism & Jesus' baptism. The ancient Church baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I didn't know Anabaptists baptize in Jesus only. Interesting. Pouring instead of immersion and in Jesus name only.

Squirmy. What about Peter? Nothing was said about John's baptism. Although John did baptize Jesus. Who did Jesus baptize?