- About SI
Mother faces contempt-of-court charges and possible jail time for baptizing her two children without the knowledge or consent of her ex-husband
Sat, 03/31/2012 - 11:46amLink
My question is with the
My question is with the Minister who was willing to baptized the children under those conditions.
Sat, 03/31/2012 - 1:14pmLink
Well, if the husband doesn't believe in infant baptism, then technically, the pastor just sprinkled water on their heads, right? I mean, nothing actually happened.
Sat, 03/31/2012 - 3:36pmLink
These aren't infants. But
These aren't infants. But worse and again, the Minister (and ex-wife) that did this is culpable of undermining the divine authority of the father in this matter whether the father believes something happens or not at baptism, adult, adolescent, child or infant and that is not germane to the issue.
Sat, 03/31/2012 - 6:22pmLink
Presby infant baptism
Clearly you don't understand infant (or child - it doesn't matter) baptism according to Presbyterianism. Charlie, being a Presby, should know. Either there was covenantal faith on part of the parents for their children, or the child merely got wet. I don't like the state getting involved in this kind of thing at all.
Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:42pmLink
Not Mutually Exclusive
My point, perhaps not expressed well, was that credobaptists, on the strength of their own theology, can't really object to a paedobaptism. The credobaptist believes that a child baptism is not a baptism at all. It is, objectively speaking, no more religiously significant than a shower. God does not recognize, nor does it do anything to/for the recipient. So... how is that a significant religious decision? It's not as though he can't have the children baptized later, when they come to a volitional faith. Baptists (and I presume credobaptist Methodists) (re)baptize people like that all the time.
Now, if the mother had had her children circumcised, THAT would be a significant religious decision.
As for the divine authority of the father, I'm not going to touch that at all.
Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:09amLink
Oh but I do unddrstand credo
Oh but I do unddrstand credo and paedobaptism and neither of them, again, is germane to the issue. Discussing these is simply a dodge of the real issue which is the malpractice of the Minister and his collusion with the mother.
Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:31amLink
Alex, Strong accusations. I
Strong accusations. I didn't see anything in the story to indicate the minister knew anything about the situation. For all we know, the mother lied about everything pertaining to the father when talking to the minister. Better to have some proof before (repeatedly) making such emphatic indictments.
Sun, 04/01/2012 - 8:00amLink
Chip If the Minister
If the Minister performed the baptism ignorant of consideration of the father in my view it would still be malpractice. But even if she lied the Minister would be negligent if he did not contact the Father and verify the information. But with these being Presbyterian baptisms they are far more likely to have been processed with certain checkpoints which require the kind of investigation that would lead to contacting both parents. In the least this is a matter of prima facie negligence in my opinion.