Should my eldest son be baptised?

kvanlaan · #1 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 08:06 AM

Here's the situation: He is 14, and was baptised into the Ethiopian Orthodox church already, but the Ethiopian Orthodox church has been described to me as "folk religion", that is, it is a mixture of animism and Eastern Orthodox beliefs. I think the official codified set of beliefs would make it very much Eastern Orthodox, but the implementation of those beliefs is more a mix of local and church faiths, as well as Judaism (they don't eat pork, etc.). I am not sure of the exact baptism ritual (Mary, could you shed any light on this?) but I am meeting with the pastor this week to discuss what we will do.

Leslie · #2 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 08:24 AM

I'm not sure of the nature of the ritual. However, the EOC is in no sense Christian. It is animistic, with a very thin Christian cultural veneer. It has been that way for centuries, just as the religion of peace in Ethiopia is also animism with a thin M veneer. That is why the EOC and the M's get along just fine and together oppose believers.

His baptism, if signifying incorporation into the local assembly, would have been making him an animist. On the other hand, if the significance depends on the right words said
(presumably mentioning the trinity) regardless of the spiritual context, then EOC baptism might possibly be valid. If the spiritual context is essential (as I think it is), then his original baptism was not valid and he should be baptized. From your other post, I assume this would be baptism upon profession of faith. Is that correct?

kvanlaan · #3 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leslie

I'm not sure of the nature of the ritual. However, the EOC is in no sense Christian. It is animistic, with a very thin Christian cultural veneer. It has been that way for centuries, just as the religion of peace in Ethiopia is also animism with a thin M veneer. That is why the EOC and the M's get along just fine and together oppose believers.

His baptism, if signifying incorporation into the local assembly, would have been making him an animist. On the other hand, if the significance depends on the right words said (presumably mentioning the trinity) regardless of the spiritual context, then EOC baptism might possibly be valid. If the spiritual context is essential (as I think it is), then his original baptism was not valid and he should be baptized. From your other post, I assume this would be baptism upon profession of faith. Is that correct?

Yes, but not in the typical reformed sense of the word. We are just starting on Catechism (due to language issues) though his love of the Lord and knowledge of scripture is readily apparent.

Leslie · #4 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 12:50 PM

The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized the same day he understood the gospel.

Another issue is how the church is to regard his previous baptism. If the church regards this as having been an initiation into an animistic/pagan system, there are historical precedents for having him renounce that. Raj might have an opinion on this.

How about your other Ethiopian offspring? Are they being baptized at the time or were they already or will they be? I assume that the issue with the oldest is that he already arrived at the age of discretion.

calgal · #5 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leslie

The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized the same day he understood the gospel.

Another issue is how the church is to regard his previous baptism. If the church regards this as having been an initiation into an animistic/pagan system, there are historical precedents for having him renounce that. Raj might have an opinion on this.

How about your other Ethiopian offspring? Are they being baptized at the time or were they already or will they be? I assume that the issue with the oldest is that he already arrived at the age of discretion.

Kevin is he ready for a Profession of Faith? From what I read here, he may not have had a trinitarian baptism so it would be best to rebaptize but he will have a better idea by the time he is able to make a profession of faith.

kvanlaan · #6 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 04:12 PM

We're doing a bulk baptism - the whole bunch is getting it. The question is about Judah since he is the only one who has been previously baptised. As for a profession of faith, I would say that Judah's would be credible, as would Esther's, even Joseph's and Isaiah's and Hannah's too. However, below that would be a bit spotty beyond a VERY basic statement of faith. There are a couple of six year olds and all the children below that who I would feel are not ready for even the most basic profession, lack of Catechism notwithstanding.

Grace Alone · #7 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 04:31 PM

Kevin, I'd do it since the first one is very questionable, and I think it will also be very meaningful to him now to be baptized with the rest of his siblings with his new parents present.

calgal · #8 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

We're doing a bulk baptism - the whole bunch is getting it. The question is about Judah since he is the only one who has been previously baptised. As for a profession of faith, I would say that Judah's would be credible, as would Esther's, even Joseph's and Isaiah's and Hannah's too. However, below that would be a bit spotty beyond a VERY basic statement of faith. There are a couple of six year olds and all the children below that who I would feel are not ready for even the most basic profession, lack of Catechism notwithstanding.

Was the prior baptism trinitarian? I know RC baptisms are accepted in many cases as valid using that criteria.

Brad · #9 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 07:55 PM

I just like the term "bulk baptism"! That brought a big ol' smile to my face.

Sorry bro, you're gonna have to wait for one of the shepherds here to give an answer on Judah, I couldn't tell you, just wanted to encourage you to sprinkle those babes and post some pics for us here.

kvanlaan · #10 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 10:09 PM

Gail, as you can see from Mary's post, the baptism was likely trinitarian in verbage, but may be like me saying mass in Latin - no real understanding or spiritual investment in what is coming out of my mouth. (So I really have no clue! Very frustrating! Unfortunately it is a very good question!

) Does that really matter? If Calvin can be baptised by an RC priest of anonymous quality (maybe that one was also a priest who simply memorized the rites, who knows) and the rite be considered valid, can I really say out of hand that an Ethiopian Orthodox baptism is invalid? It's a big question...

yeutter · #11 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 10:16 PM

Isn't the Ethiopian Coptic Orthodox Church monophysite. I doubt the validity of monophysite [and for that matter nestorian] baptism.
For baptism to be valid it must both use the proper wording, "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," and be done with orthodox Trinitarian intent. Are these conditions met in a monophysite "Church"

calgal · #12 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Gail, as you can see from Mary's post, the baptism was likely trinitarian in verbage, but may be like me saying mass in Latin - no real understanding or spiritual investment in what is coming out of my mouth. (So I really have no clue! Very frustrating! Unfortunately it is a very good question!

) Does that really matter? If Calvin can be baptised by an RC priest of anonymous quality (maybe that one was also a priest who simply memorized the rites, who knows) and the rite be considered valid, can I really say out of hand that an Ethiopian Orthodox baptism is invalid? It's a big question...

That is a good question and it might be a great teaching moment for the kids. What constitutes a valid baptism according to the confessions would be interesting for them to research.

I would be curious to see what you all come up with.

kvanlaan · #13 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 10:28 PM

Here's what they say about themselves...

Quote:

THE ISSUE BETWEEN MONOPHYSITISM AND DYOPHYSITISM

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church considers itself to belong to the One, Holy, Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is Holy because its founder, Jesus Christ, is Holy; it is Catholic because the whole world is its province and because it is universal in time and place; it is Apostolic because it was established on earth by the Apostles of Christ.

The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church belongs to the group of Orthodox Churches wrongly termed "Monophysite" but which prefer the epithet "Non-Chalcedonian". The other members of this family are the Coptic, Armenian, Syrian and Indian Churches. Together with the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Orthodox Churches they comprised the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for four centuries until the division arose on account of the Greek-Roman Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. which insisted that Christ had the two natures of Humanity and Divinity.

Dyophysite (those who hold the teaching of Chalcedon) teach that, after the union, Christ retained the natures of Divinity and Humanity in His one Person in such a way that He ate food, slept, laughed, suffered, walked as man in the human nature, but healed the sick and raised Lazarus as God in the Divine nature. Thus He is one Person in two natures of humanity and Divinity. The wrongly called Monophysite reject the allegation that they teach one Nature and one Person in Christ. The teaching of the Ethiopian Church may thus be summarized:

1. The Ethiopian Church rejects Eutyches, who is believed to have taught that in Christ the human Nature was absorbed by the Divine Nature. Nestorius also is excluded.

2. Dioscorus, whom the Council of Chalcedon deposed, is accepted. But it should be remembered that the Council of 451 did not believe that Dioscorus was a heretic. Dioscorus did not deny the continuance of Godhead and manhood in the One Christ after their union and he agreed with the Council that the teaching which Eutyches was understood to hold was heretical.

3. The teaching of the Ethiopian Church is the faith of the Fathers expounded by the great theologians of the Alexandrine tradition, especially by St. Cyril and his illustrious theological followers. Accordingly the Ethiopian Church maintains that Christ is perfect God and perfect man, at once consubstantial with the Father and with us; the Divinity and the humanity continuing in Him without mixture or separation, confusion or change. He is one and the same person both in his eternal pre-existence and also in the economy, in which he performs the redeeming work of God on behalf of man, from the indivisible state of union of Godhead and manhood.

4. The Church abides by the formula "The one Incarnate Nature of God the Word", on which St. Cyril of Alexandria increasingly insisted, a formula which was accepted as correct by the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D and which, after the Council of Chalcedon, the Chalcedonian side in the East itself admitted.

5. It is unfair for any of the Oriental Churches to be nicknamed "Monophysites" by the faithful who accept the Chalcedonian formula of "two Natures in the one Person of Jesus Christ", because the expression used by the non-Chalcedonian side was always miaphysis, and never Monophysis (mia standing for a composite unity unlike mone standing for an elemental unity). Therefore these churches are best referred to as the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.

6. "Tewahedo" is the Ethiopian term (meaning "made one") which is the best expression conveying the faith of the Church, since it emphasizes the inseparable unity of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Christ. The Church's official title is "The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Bete Christian."

7. After the Union, Christ was no longer in two natures. The two natures became united into one nature without separation, without confusion and without change. Thus He was at the same tithe perfect God and perfect man. This is the union of the natures in the Incarnation. After the union Christ is not two persons or two natures. but one Person, one incarnate Nature of God the Son, with one will, but being at once divine and human. If you separate the natures after the union and say that Christ is in two natures, you will be confronted with serious problems. You will have to admit, for instance, that Christ was crucified merely as a man and that therefore he did not redeem the world, for God alone is able to accomplish the world's redemption. In brief, it is held that Christ, in acting, acted as a united being, not separately as man or separately as God.

8. Proof that we believe in the continuance of Divinity and humanity in the One Christ may be illustrated:

a) In the Communion we receive the True Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. These belong to man, humanity, and we know that Jesus Christ is God, Divinity.

b) The present Liturgy can be used as a criterion of the Church. There it is openly expressed that there is Divinity and humanity in Christ.

c) The Chalcedonian formula was rejected because it was thought to destroy the one person of Christ and there was no clear distinction between "nature" and "person", person meant nature.

d) We believe the Nicean Creed in which the Divinity and humanity of Christ are set forth, and in the Creed of the liturgy we declare our belief in the co-equality of Jesus Christ with God the Father, and belief in his having grown like men, yet without sin or evil, and in his having taken flesh from Mary.

e) The confession of Faith by the Ethiopian Emperor Claudius declares that Jesus Christ was perfect man and perfect God.

Monophysitism is rejected. It is a question of error in vocabulary, the concepts of Nature and Person not being clear and there being obscurity in philosophical terms such as physis, hypostasis, ausia, prosopon, atreptos, mia, mono etc. As to the two natures of Christ the Dyophysites and non-Chalcedonians are one, it is a matter of interpretation after the union of the two natures. Happily the Dyophysites are currently realizing the position.

Kevin · #14 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 11:28 PM

How do you view baptism would be a better title for this thread.

If you accept the baptistic theory that baptism is a sign of "what I meant when I did it" then you might come to a very different answer to this question.

If however, you accept the "christian" (i.e. what most people who were christians , through most of history, believed) then you will come to an other conclusion.

I honestly believe that you are re-fighting the same battle our fathers struggled with when they faced the Donatist controversy.

The question is not "what did the priest mean"? but rather, " What does God Mean"?

IOW Baptism is a SIGN (and a seal) of Gods promise to us, NOT a token of " what we think about what just happened".

jwithnell · #15 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 11:34 PM

What does your pastor say?

kvanlaan · #16 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 11:49 PM

I meet with my pastor on Wednesday, along with an elder, to try and hash this out.

Kevin, I know (and do believe) that baptism is a sign of God's promise to us, but then what of a Mormon baptism that is likewise done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Is it not their false understanding of what "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" mean that invalidates it? Otherwise, would it not fit under "What does God mean?" by nature of the naming of the three parts of the Trinity?

Kevin · #17 (**permalink**) 04-06-2009, 12:02 AM

Kevin I am glad that you are wrestling with this.

Baptism is important.

Ritual is important.

Seeking the advice of your own, local session is important.

However in my own (limited) understanding I would not consider the EOC on the same level as the LDS. If they are (the same) then the matter changes in a major way.

(praying)

yeutter · #18 (**permalink**) 04-06-2009, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Kevin I am glad that you are wrestling with this.

Baptism is important.

Ritual is important.

...I would not consider the EOC on the same level as the LDS. If they are (the same) then the matter changes in a major way.

I agree that Coptic Orthodoxy is not the same as the Mormon heresy. Mormon/LDS heretics clearly lack Trinitarian intent in baptism even though they use the right words. The case is not so clear cut with our Coptic Orthodox friends.
I am for erring on the side of Chalcedon and do not assume the baptism of the Armenian or Coptic Churches to be valid. Most of my fellow Anglicans disagree with me.
It is wonderful that the Gospel is now being preached in purity in Ethiopia and Eritrea.
How do Lutheran and OPC missions in Ethiopia view Coptic Baptism? Has this been dealt with officially?

DonP · #19 (**permalink**) 04-06-2009, 12:46 AM

I say it is not that big of a deal to nit pick over.

It would do the boy good to get baptized as a denunciation of the pagan ritual he had before and he will never have any doubts in his mind if his baptism was as good as the rest of the family's.

Why put the boy through such unnecessary anguish.

It wasn't covenant baptism before because his parents weren't in the covenant and he probably did not have a legitimate credible profession of faith as we understand it either if he was in the EOC so, sprinkle him on profession of profession of faith with the family and they younger kids covenantal baptism.

jogri17 · #20 (**permalink**) 04-06-2009, 12:51 AM

I would say pretend he was baptised in the RCC and depending on your opinion on if a catholic should be rebaptised go for that. Personally I think Calvin would say its not necessary.

DonP · #21 (**permalink**) 04-06-2009, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jogri17

I would say pretend he was baptised in the RCC and depending on your opinion on if a catholic should be rebaptised go for that. Personally I think Calvin would say its not necessary.

It wasn't Catholic,

And even if it isn't necessary, its not wrong to baptize him.

The issue is he at 14 and older it will be good for him to have a clear conscience on the issue of his obedience to Christ in this matter.

Hey the Baptists rejected my presbyterian sprinkling and it was on profession of faith. So i was dunked and it didn't hurt me. Then when I understood the covenants and baptism I valued my sprinkling more than the dunk.

Kevin · #22 (**permalink**) 04-06-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Quote:

Originally Posted by jogri17

I would say pretend he was baptised in the RCC and depending on your opinion on if a catholic should be rebaptised go for that. Personally I think Calvin would say its not necessary.

It wasn't Catholic,

And even if it isn't necessary, its not wrong to baptize him.

The issue is he at 14 and older it will be good for him to have a clear conscience on the issue of his obedience to Christ in this matter.

Hey the Baptists rejected my presbyterian sprinkling and it was on profession of faith. So i was dunked and it didn't hurt me. Then when I understood the covenants and baptism I valued my sprinkling more than the dunk.

IMHO anyone who thinks that rebaptism is "no big deal", and "It can't hurt" has not obsorb that much from the reading of Calvin or the puritans.

The reason kvan is working through this carefully is because a rebaptism is a very big deal. I am certain he would only take this step if he was fully convinced that his son was unbaptised, not just flipently say "no big deal".

DonP · #23 (**permalink**) 04-06-2009, 08:15 PM

What I meant was it will do no harm to baptize him and if it is uncertain whether the baptism was legit or not, which it doesn't sound like it probably was from the Ethiopian poster, I would say it would be best to be baptized than to not be.

Its not as big a deal to be re-baptized compared to not be baptized at all. I would err on the side of making sure it was done.

To the extent I would not consider the 1st a baptism at all if it can't be determined it obviously is.

Wouldn't you agree better to be baptized for certain?

kvanlaan · #24 (**permalink**) 04-06-2009, 08:51 PM

Quote:

I would say pretend he was baptised in the RCC and depending on your opinion on if a catholic should be rebaptised go for that. Personally I think Calvin would say its not necessary.

But that's just it; the baptism was done by the RC 'equivalent' of a Haitian RC who is into some voodoo as well. It's a 'folk' religion, not at all orthodox by RC standards.

Quote:

I agree that Coptic Orthodoxy is not the same as the Mormon heresy. Mormon/LDS heretics clearly lack Trinitarian intent in baptism even though they use the right words. The case is not so clear cut with our Coptic Orthodox friends.

I am for erring on the side of Chalcedon and do not assume the baptism of the Armenian or Coptic Churches to be valid. Most of my fellow Anglicans disagree with me.

It is wonderful that the Gospel is now being preached in purity in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

How do Lutheran and OPC missions in Ethiopia view Coptic Baptism? Has this been dealt with officially?

So take a Copt and graft him onto an animist, and that's what you've got. Someone who may say that your child is sick and we should pray that the Lord would heal him but may just as likely say that the ashes of the incense from the morning mass should be sprinkled around the child and the mother should pray on each step of the local cathedral, then sleep in the shadow of the building that night, and then everything may be OK with the boy (assuming the tree spirits don't get involved...)