Baptism and the Eucharist

[LuxPerpetua]

I've run into a snag. Although I do believe in the final authority of Scripture, I am beginning to think that tradition is really important, too. It seems like a lot of churches that claim Sola Scriptura actually do adhere to tradition somewhat, especially in regard to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. Maybe you can help me correct my understanding:


Does your church perform infant baptism, and what is the Scriptural reference relating to this practice? Are adults immersed or sprinkled? Are there Scriptural passages relating to either baptism by immersion or baptism by sprinkling?


How often does your church celebrate the Eucharist/communion/Lord's supper, and how did your church arrive at when to celebrate this meal? What Scriptural passages have influenced how your church celebrates communion (how your church interprets the "nature" of the communion elements, how often you have communion, is communion a vessel of God's grace, etc.)?


****
Why are some traditions acceptable but others not?

[JVAC]

I'm Lutheran. The Lutheran Church has always held tradition valuable yet subordinate to scripture. Yet there are many refferences to child baptisms. A while ago, Lotar had a thread on hear that covered the infant baptism issue, something about biblical parallels or something, do a quick search for the word parallel.

We celebrate the Eucharist, depending on the church, every Sunday. Actually I celebrated it twice today, once in the morning and once more tonight. The practice of every sunday communion goes back to church tradition. I guess the scripture would be "...as oft as ye do this, this do in remembrance of me."

The traditions that aren't acceptable are those contrary to Holy Scripture.

-James

[LuxPerpetua]

I guess I'm confused because many of the arguments I've seen by Catholic and Orthodox Christians in regard to their traditions always have a Biblical basis, too. This realization has been a very active part of my questioning at the moment.

[InquisitorKind]

I've run into a snag. Although I do believe in the final authority of Scripture, I am beginning to think that tradition is really important, too. It seems like a lot of churches that claim Sola Scriptura actually do adhere to tradition somewhat, especially in regard to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist.
What is your understanding of Sola Scriptura?

Why are some traditions acceptable but others not?
Do those traditions contradict the word of God (Matthew 15)? The Scriptures are the final authority when it comes to matters of tradition.

I guess I'm confused because many of the arguments I've seen by Catholic and Orthodox Christians in regard to their traditions always have a Biblical basis, too. This realization has been a very active part of my questioning at the moment.
Could you explain what you mean by this in more detail?

~Matt

[theologia crucis]

If you are bored and have time, here's a link to a pdf document that is the 1991 edition of the Explanation of Luther's Small Catechism, with all the attendant Scripture references:

http://old.www.lcms.org/bookofconcord/pdf/explanation.pdf

It has the "thought process" derived from the Scriptures alone showing how infant baptism and the Real Presence is derived by us Lutherans.




Tradition is NEVER, EVER used for doctrine in the Lutheran church. It is used for worship services. However, a continuous belief in infant baptism and the Real Presence from the time of the Apostles until the present helps lend great historical weight to what is taught in the Scriptures, not the other way around.

[LuxPerpetua]

My understanding of Sola Scriptura is the reliance upon the Bible as the final authority in doctrinal matters. Is this incorrect?

I've seen very good, Biblically-based arguments from Catholics and Orthodox on such issues as: Mary as mediatrix, prayers for the dead and to saints, the Real Presence (I thought I'd include this since not all Protestants believe in the Real Presence, and the same goes for infant baptism), confession to priests for forgiveness of sins, the power of relics, and purgatory.

This is where I get confused. Many of these things Protestants consider "tradition" rather than Scriptural, but then I feel in the same breath these same Protestants uphold certain traditions they consider Scriptural but which are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. I'm confused because I've seen both Catholics and Orthodox do the exact same thing with those things mentioned above.

[LuxPerpetua]

I will check out the Lutheran catechism later in the week when I have more time. I'm very interested to see the Biblical basis for infant baptism, since this is something I've been wondering about a lot lately.

[InquisitorKind]

My understanding of Sola Scriptura is the reliance upon the Bible as the final authority in doctrinal matters. Is this incorrect?
It sounds right, but I would need to see it fleshed out to determine an appropriate answer.

This is where I get confused. Many of these things Protestants consider "tradition" rather than Scriptural, but then I feel in the same breath these same Protestants uphold certain traditions they consider Scriptural but which are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. I'm confused because I've seen both Catholics and Orthodox do the exact same thing with those things mentioned above.
Although I do not know which particular Protestant groups you have in mind, the difference is that many of the traditions that Catholics and Orthodox uphold are not only based on raw speculation (why do Catholics have to go to Matthew 16:18 to prove the papacy instead of passages that speak directly on church government, or passages like Revelation 5:8 to prove prayer to saints instead of the hundreds of other prayers in the Scriptures, etc.), but contradicted by the Scriptures. Since it seems that you believe otherwise, I understand why you would hold the questions that you do about Protestant beliefs.

~Matt

[LynneClomina]

I've run into a snag. Although I do believe in the final authority of Scripture, I am beginning to think that tradition is really important, too. It seems like a lot of churches that claim Sola Scriptura actually do adhere to tradition somewhat, especially in regard to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. Maybe you can help me correct my understanding:


Does your church perform infant baptism, and what is the Scriptural reference relating to this practice? Are adults immersed or sprinkled? Are there Scriptural passages relating to either baptism by immersion or baptism by sprinkling?


How often does your church celebrate the Eucharist/communion/Lord's supper, and how did your church arrive at when to celebrate this meal? What Scriptural passages have influenced how your church celebrates communion (how your church interprets the "nature" of the communion elements, how often you have communion, is communion a vessel of God's grace, etc.)?


****
Why are some traditions acceptable but others not?
tradition is fine so long as it's biblical, but not necessarily necessary. :)
i'm not one for tradition, so i like our relatively traditionless church. although i guess we have our own kinda traditions in the sense of things we have dont each week for several years.... but we are always watching that tradition or routine does not become "empty".

our church does not practice infant baptisms. we do not feel it is biblical. one needs to be a believer first. and we fully immerse, because in the bible it says so-and-so "came up out of the water"... one cannot come "up" out of the water unless one is first in it! and we understand baptism to be our identification with Christ's death and resurrection - as He went into the earth, we go into the water, and as he came up glorified and alive, so we come up out of the water, "a new creation". not that that occurs at baptism, it occurred at salvation. but this is a public declaration of our identification with Christ.

communion. ok, please nobody flame me for sharing about my non-traditional church, ok? :D
we dont have communion very often in church. when it's put on my pastor's heart, we do it. often we do communion in cell, as it is put on the cell shepherd's heart. sometimes individuals will do it over the dinner table, when it's put on their heart to do so. we do not see it as something only to be done "in church", or only administered by "pastors". our church believes in the preisthood of all believers, so any of us, so long as we are right before God, can administer communion or baptize.

[LuxPerpetua]

I've often wondered about the priesthood of all believers in regard to baptism and communion myself. I wonder what others think?

[Marissa]

communion. ok, please nobody flame me for sharing about my non-traditional church, ok? :D
we dont have communion very often in church. when it's put on my pastor's heart, we do it. often we do communion in cell, as it is put on the cell shepherd's heart. sometimes individuals will do it over the dinner table, when it's put on their heart to do so. we do not see it as something only to be done "in church", or only administered by "pastors". our church believes in the preisthood of all believers, so any of us, so long as we are right before God, can administer communion or baptize.

I really like that idea. Sometimes I feel as though communion is a bit empty when we do it too often. It's becomes "what you do" rather than genuine. There are so many things one can say before communion is taken before you have to start repeating.

We do have something similiar in "preaching". After worship, but before the sermon anyone can get up and give a spiel if God has put something on their heart. Something I've never experienced before, but again something I really appreciate.

Communion in my church: I'm not sure how often we do it. I've just joined. In the past I've been to churches where it's every Sunday morning but never Sunday night, and others where it's once every few months. I personally prefer the latter for reasons I've already said.

I can't help with infant baptism because we don't perform them. We believe they're done after becoming saved and also perform full immersion.

[Phoebe]

I bumped some threads for you, Lux.

[premilldispensationalist]

1. Does your church perform infant baptism
2. Are adults immersed or sprinkled?
3. Are there Scriptural passages relating to either baptism by immersion or baptism by sprinkling?
4. How often does your church celebrate the Eucharist/communion/Lord's supper?

1. No
2. Immersed
3. Read Acts
4. twice a month

Regards,
Richard Sherratt

[II Paradox II]

I've run into a snag. Although I do believe in the final authority of Scripture, I am beginning to think that tradition is really important, too. It seems like a lot of churches that claim Sola Scriptura actually do adhere to tradition somewhat, especially in regard to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. Maybe you can help me correct my understanding:

Why are some traditions acceptable but others not? a few thoughts:

1) Tradition is important. Most people who reject "tradition" outright are often not applying this rejection consistently. For example, most of our theological language is traditional, passed on from one generation of Christians to the next. For example, our common trinitarian langauge is not explicitly scriptural, but philosophical langauge developed to express our beliefs in how God exists.

2) Tradition exists in tension with scripture. If anything, I think this is the most important part of the equation. Simply put, those who allow tradition to interpret scripture for them at all times are asking for trouble as their tradition will soon become a lens through which scripture will always be read, making scripture in essence just a formality that cannot be understood outside the tradition. The opposite can happen if one tries to read scripture with no tradition at all. In this case the scripture become a playground for individuals to read in their own biases, sometimes getting it right and sometimes wrong, but always at their own mercy. Scripture must instead exist in tension with tradition, read through the lens of our church tradition, but also read prophetically such that it corrects our traditions when they skew off the base. You see this repeatedly in scripture itself where Christ obeys the traditions and exists within them, but savages them when they bind people in fasle expectations of men.

2a) In relation to point #2, it is important to establish what role you see the scriptures playing. The scriptures themselves portray themselves as being more than just static words on a page, but as something more, a sort of sacramental presence that is used by the spirit to move the hearts and minds of men. When you hear people speak of tradition and scripture be on the lookout for how they view the powers associated with these things. For some, the scriptures are primarily a dead letter, it's meaning hidden to the average man. Meaning, therefore, is mediated by a magesterial class that understands the message and passes down this essential to the people in the form of traditional practice. For others, the word is more of sacrament through which the Spirit teaches and prods the people of God towards the kingdom (this is my own view). Tradition then becomes the accumulated wisdom of the people of God in their reflections upon scripture, not infallible, but something to be considered and not transgressed with ease. For still others, they take a more mechanistic view of scripture such that the words on the page are known through our own abilities to read and comprehend. The spirit works on our understanding itself to grow us as Christians.

3) As to why some traditions and not others... I have yet to see anyone apply a consistent principle here. That being said, there are probably a few rules that can be applied.

*For one, no tradition should exist that explicitly contradicts scripture.
*Secondly, tradition should not be given a blank check if it just meets the criteria of "not contradicting scripture". There are many propositions that don't contradict scripture which are nonetheless false.
*Thirdly, I don't think tradition should be used to establish dogma or docrine of the church. For example, while I think the principle expressed by the concilar langauge about the trinity is correct, I would not reject someone's Christian profession if they chose to express the same concepts in different langauge. The reason is that I believe the langauge if the councils expresses a concept that is contained in scripture, even if it's philosophical definition is not there. Scripture should be our standard in defining the doctrine of the church, not traditions.
*Fourthly, traditions must have a very good, univocal pedigree to have a deep influence over the church. One of the biggest problems many have with the most contentious traditions today is that they simply do not have a spotless pedigree from the earliest days of christian practice. Many accepted traditions today have been widely contradicted in the early church or later periods.

Ultimately, scripture is the highest authority because we know it is revealed truth of God. Tradition is secondary because its status is less clear. It is important, but it should not be a trump card used to bypass the scriptures.

hope that helps...

ken

[countrymousenc]

Lux, for what it's worth (because you already know where I'm coming from on this ;) ) ...

The NT Scriptures do say that the Church is a royal priesthood (1 Peter, chapter 2),

4. Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious,
5. you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

9. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;


The problem with the doctrine of the "priesthood of the believer" is that it fails to recognize the corporate nature of our priesthood. Peter did not say that every believer may do whatever he wishes, but that we must function together in an orderly manner, under Christ's authority. The Church, functioning within that authority, developed an orderly system for ministry and mission and for guarding and passing along the truth to the following generations. If we doubt that it was necessary, all we have to do is read 1 Corinthians.

[Lotar]

Lux, for what it's worth (because you already know where I'm coming from on this ;) ) ...

The NT Scriptures do say that the Church is a royal priesthood (1 Peter, chapter 2),



The problem with the doctrine of the "priesthood of the believer" is that it fails to recognize the corporate nature of our priesthood. Peter did not say that every believer may do whatever he wishes, but that we must function together in an orderly manner, under Christ's authority. The Church, functioning within that authority, developed an orderly system for ministry and mission and for guarding and passing along the truth to the following generations. If we doubt that it was necessary, all we have to do is read 1 Corinthians.
That's not what priesthood of the believer means. What it means is that the believer may administer the sacraments, confession, ect.


The Priesthood of Believers and the Divine Service
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/blank.gif http://www.lcms.org/graphics/blank.gifBy Dr. George Wollenburg
With the exception of the biblical doctrine of justification, perhaps no biblical teaching is more dear to the hearts of Lutherans than the priesthood of all believers. Recent discussion of this biblical teaching has spoken of the priesthood of all believers in terms of church activity, evangelism, and lay participation in public worship, e.g., reading the lessons and assisting at the distribution of Holy Communion.

To say that all believers are priests is not the same as saying that everyone is a minister. The word "minister" has traditionally been reserved for those persons called to serve the priesthood in the pastoral office. This brief article will relate the priesthood of believers to the divine service, understanding the divine service as the chief parochial service, whether on Sunday morning or at some other time during the week.

The Priesthood Is Not a Collection of Individuals

The priesthood is more than a collection of individuals; it is a "chosen race, royal priesthood, holy nation, a people purchased to be God's possession" (1 Pet. 2:9). A race is more than a collection of individuals. A race has identity which is derived from a common ancestry. You cannot join a race, you are born into it. The chosen race has a Father in heaven and a mother on earth-Holy Church. Her members are born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). Their mother is the holy and pure bride of Christ, the Church (Gal. 4:26; Eph. 5:25-27; Rev. 12:1,5,6; Is. 66:8,9). This race is a spiritual house (1 Pet. 2:5) in the sense of the royal "house" or lineage. They are the true "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:27,29).

The priesthood is a "people purchased as God's own possession" and thus they are the Lord's heritage among all the peoples of the earth (Ps. 2:8; 28:8,9; 33:12; 78:62,71; 94:5,14). They are a people, not in the sense of a crowd of individuals, but a society, a community. They are distinct as a people and their distinctiveness is that God has purchased them and thus made them a people who belong to him. He has made a covenant with them (Deut. 4:7; Jer. 31:33), a New Covenant in the blood of Christ (Matt. 26:27,28; Mark 15:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). They were "formerly not a people" but are "now the people of God" (1 Pet. 2:10). God dwells among them (Ex. 29:46; 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Cor. 3:16; Ezek. 37:26,27).

Individual members of the priesthood receive their identity when the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is put upon them. The nature and character of the royal priesthood is that of a community or society. The identity of each member of the priesthood is determined by his or her relationship to the community in which God lives with his Spirit (Eph. 2:22). In contrast to idolatrous baalism, paganism, animistic religions, and gnosticism, both ancient and modern, no one can know or belong to God as an isolated individual. The worship of the community of the priesthood is not a crowd of individuals coming together, each to have his own religious experience.

The royal priesthood are a holy priesthood (1 Pet. 2:5), a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9). The holiness of the priesthood is not a result of their own achievement or work. God clothes his priests with righteousness, their vestment which makes them holy (Ex. 28; Ps. 132:9). The holiness of the priests is Christ himself, his righteousness, purity, perfect obedience. The priests are clothed with Christ, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). God makes his priests holy so that they are fit to serve him. Priests must be holy in order to have access to God. Whoever enters into the presence of God without the priestly vestment will die (Ex. 28:43). The old collect or the communicants recognizes this and prays, "...take off from them the spotted garment of the flesh and their own righteousness and clothe them with the garment of righteousness purchased with Thy blood."

For the Sake of the World

The root of the word for holy in Hebrew is a word meaning to cut or separate. The priesthood is separated from sin and from the race of Adam to serve God. "Let my people go that they may serve me" (Ex. 7:16; 8:1; 8:20; 9:1). As God used the waters of the sea to rescue Israel from their bondage, they "...all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:2); so in the water of baptism God redeems his royal priesthood from the bondage of sin, Satan, and death, in order that they might serve him. They are separated, set apart, sanctified, consecrated to the service of God for the sake of the world. Through baptism they share in Christ's resurrection (Rom. 6:4,5). "Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ" (Rev. 20:6).

In the royal priesthood the whole of human race is represented before God. This priesthood is to "bring them to continual remembrance before the Lord" (Ex. 28:29). The royal priesthood enters into the presence of God in order to offer intercession, prayers, thanksgiving, and praise to God on behalf of all the children of Adam and of all creation. Together with "angels and archangels and all the company of heaven" they offer praise and thanksgiving (Rev. 5:8-14).

The royal priesthood stands in the presence of men and women as representative of God. They offer their bodies as a "living sacrifice" (Rom. 12:1) in their daily work and station in life for the sake of the world. At baptism three divine "mysteries" (hidden wisdom) are given to each member of the priesthood. They are given the Ten Commandments as the priestly rule of discipline, the Apostles' Creed as their doxology and confession, and the Our Father as their priestly prayer of intercession. The Ten Commandments describe the holy life to be lived for the sake of the world. The priests are salt and light for the world (Matt. 5:13,14). By lives lived according to his hidden wisdom, they fulfill their priestly calling to mediate the presence of God to the world.

The second divine mystery given to members of the priesthood at baptism is a doxology and confession, the Apostles' Creed. With these words the priesthood says to the baptized, "This is how you must speak about God so that you do not tell lies about him.

You must speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These words are entrusted to you so that the world may learn to know the only God who is." The prophet Malachi says, "For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is a messenger of the Lord of Hosts" (2:7). To confess means to say the same thing about God which God has said about himself (Matt. 16:17). Such is always doxology. Doxology means to glorify and praise God, "to declare the wonderful deeds of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). To praise God means to speak of what God has done. The Creed summarizes all that the Trinity has done in the past, is presently doing, and will do in the future. This confession and doxology is given to the members of the priesthood for the sake of the world.

The Importance of the Divine Service in the Formation of the Priesthood

In contrast to that sort of gnostic religion where each individual seeks his or her own spirituality, the members of the priesthood are always formed and shaped as citizens of the "holy nation," the people whom God has purchased as his own inheritance. God forms and shapes his priesthood, which is why the chief worship activity of the priesthood is called the divine service. God serves his priesthood by continually renewing their holiness.

The holiness of the priesthood is continually put upon them as an alien righteousness. It is never the consequence of their life or achievement. To say it in traditional terms, the holiness of the believer is not his sanctification, but the imputed righteousness of Christ, on account of which all sins are forgiven to those who believe. The knowledge of sin is taught to each member of the priesthood by the Ten Commandments (Rom. 3:20).

When the priesthood gathers in the divine service the Chief Priest, Christ, is present among them to serve them. He does so through the called servant, their minister. The Chief Priest serves his priesthood by granting them absolution, or forgiveness. The called servant of the Word speaks by the command of Christ. The absolution is true absolution before God in heaven (Matt. 16:19). Since the practice of private confession and absolution has fallen into disuse among us, the general confession was introduced into the divine service. However, a return to the practice of personal confession and absolution ought to be urgently pursued.

The priesthood gathers to listen to the word which God speaks through his prophets (Old Testament), through the Apostles of Christ (Epistles), through his Son (Gospels), and through their minister. The Holy Spirit instructs and forms the priesthood through the forgiveness of sins given through the Gospel, the Holy Supper, and the word preached by his minister.

The gathering of the priesthood at the divine service is for the sake of the world. This priesthood comes to offer to God the praise and thanksgiving which is due from all creation. Praise is not an individual activity, carried out in private. "I will tell of your name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you" (Ps. 22:22). These words are from the psalm which the Chief Priest prayed from the cross. The sacrifice of praise which the priesthood brings to God (Heb. 13:13) is an activity of the gathered priesthood. Praise and thanksgiving is the telling of God's deeds (Ps. 9:11). The Creed is the doxology and confession of the priesthood; it is not a subjective statement of private belief. No one has the privilege of substituting a more "personal" confession.

St. Paul describes the Lord's Supper as an act of praise and thanksgiving. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26). The act of eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ is in itself the proclaiming of his death. This is not a religious "cocktail hour" to enjoy in another's company. The wonderful deeds which God has done, are done for the priesthood as they eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. "This is my body...my blood...for you for the forgiveness of sins." The priesthood proclaims to the world that our holiness, our righteousness, is a work of God through the death and resurrection of his Son. Those who neglect or despise this sacrament proclaim by their absence that they believe salvation and eternal life is a result of their own achievement and work. Eating and drinking in this sacrament is the stubborn and defiant proclamation that God has broken and destroyed the powers of Satan, sin, death, and hell, for us. In the face of suffering, pain, disease, persecution, loneliness, sin, death, and hell the priesthood raises the "terrible toast of joy."

The priesthood gathers to offer intercession for all sorts and conditions of men. The priests were taught to pray the Our Father as intercessory and priestly prayer. The prayers offered by the chosen race bring all the race of Adam to God in continual remembrance (1 Tim. 2:1-4). Their prayer is offered for the sake of the world, since "God would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth."

Ritual as the Primary Means of Formation

No aspect of the corporate life of a community is more important than its public rituals. Cultic life sustains and transmits the community's identity, way of life, and values. No people can exist as a community without cultic life. The importance of ritual for sustaining identity and securing loyalty is clearly understood by youth gangs whose ritual is mandatory for membership.

In order to accomplish this end, ritual must be stereotyped and orderly. A ritual which changes continually utterly fails to sustain the life of the chosen race, the holy nation. The explicit instructions given to Israel for its cultic life and rituals in the Old Testament are intended to give form and shape to them as a distinct and holy people. They are identified as a people by their rituals, and the God whom they worship is also identified. Their cultic life was the way in which they were continually reminded that they belonged to the God who had made them his "purchased possession," a peculiar people.

The only divine mandate given for the ritual of the holy priesthood is the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the ritual of the divine service are essential, some of which have been mentioned above. one

aspect of the public ritual, however, is primary. The ritual must identify the Trinity whom the priesthood serves. The name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit identifies the community that gathers as the royal priesthood. This name was given them and placed on them at their baptism. The word "god" is a generic term. The God who speaks in the first commandment names himself for us in the divine command to baptize. This is the God whom the priesthood confesses in the Creed. The substitutions of other language for the divine name, such as "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" is not a name, but a description of divine activity.

The very nature of the priesthood precludes making this gathering a marketing tool to increase the membership of the organization. When the public ritual becomes "meaningful" to people without faith in God, it is false ritual, a betrayal of the priestly gathering, and a betrayal of the God who has chosen them as his own purchased possession. It is idolatrous.

Originally published in Lutheran Worship Notes, Issue 32, 1995.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=841

[LuxPerpetua]

Thanks, Phoebe, for bumping ;)

Thanks to everyone else who has been so kind to share your thoughts with me.

And, Ken (paradox) which denomination do you subscribe to at the moment? I feel my thoughts at the moment are fitting best with your views on this subject.

[II Paradox II]

And, Ken (paradox) which denomination do you subscribe to at the moment? I feel my thoughts at the moment are fitting best with your views on this subject.
Personally I am Reformed Baptist, though I am comfortable in anything from Reformed in general (presby, Dutch Reformed etc...) to conservative Lutheran. Essentially conservative confessional churches. That may seem like a fairly broad group of churches, but it's not if you think about it. The thing each of them share is a decent respect for the history of the church, dedication to evangelical theology of salvation and a general thoughtfulness about the faith. Within these groups there are better or worse congregations, but on the whole I have found more good than bad.

IMO - judging from what you seem to deal with, you would probably fit well in a conservative Lutheran group the best or one of the more high church reformed congregations.

ken

[LuxPerpetua]

I'm highly considering Lutheranism at this point, so good call there. I'm leaning toward ELCA because of my strong feelings against closed communion (but that's another thread).

What is the difference between Reformed Baptist and say, Southern Baptist? I was raised SB but don't know much at all about RBs.

[II Paradox II]

I'm highly considering Lutheranism at this point, so good call there. I'm leaning toward ELCA because of my strong feelings against closed communion (but that's another thread).
Most of the concerns you raise are dealt with explicitly in Lutheranism as well. Many other groups only deal with things like tradition and so froth peripherally.

What is the difference between Reformed Baptist and say, Southern Baptist? I was raised SB but don't know much at all about RBs.
RB's are essentially calvinistic baptists with a much more confessional stance than say, SB's. Some famous ones I can think of would be Charles Spurgeon and John Piper (you can read some of his adapted catchism here (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/what_we_believe/catechism.html) ). Confessionally we subscribe to the 1689 London Confession of Faith, a document which is essentially the westminster confession with some changes on the issues of paedobaptism. Worship-wise we tend to be more liturgical than other baptists. That being said, there is a fairly wide charismatic streak running through RB churches as well (I am one as is John Piper) though it is more controlled and ordered than you may find in many purely charismatic churches.

ken

[LuxPerpetua]

Liturgical Baptists--that sounds so funny to my ears, but I like it. Hmmm. Another denomination to check out :)

[II Paradox II]

Liturgical Baptists--that sounds so funny to my ears, but I like it. Hmmm. Another denomination to check out :)
Well, at least more liturgical than SB's =) To be honest, it really depends on the congregation. I've been to some that had a liturgical calendar with set verses to preach out of and others which were more fluid, though they were definitely more liturgical than your average baptist church.

If you really want high liturgy your best bet is either Lutheran or Anglican (conservative is best here, both denoms have some very liberal sectors).

ken

[ChrisB]

I've often wondered about the priesthood of all believers in regard to baptism and communion myself. I wonder what others think?

I don't see any Biblical basis for denying that non-ordained believers can baptise. I believe my opinion is bolstered by the baptism of Paul (Saul) In Acts 9

Acts 9

17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Similarly with communion - in my church although the pastor usually presides the bread and wine are distributed among the congregation (who remain in their seats) by elders, deacons and other non-ordained church memebers.