<p>Obama quit his church, and Doug Kmiec’s (Catholic) church seems to be quitting him for being an Obama supporter.</p>
<p>
[washingtonpost.com</a> - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines](<a href=“http://washingtonpost.com%5Dwashingtonpost.com”>http://washingtonpost.com)</p>
<p>“I think you’ll get different answers on born again if you ask different people. Attending a church for a long time doesn’t mean that you know all of the doctrine and terms and what the terms mean in general usage as opposed to your own parish.”</p>
<p>Come on, now. The guy attends a church. He knows that being born again means being “saved,” or “accepting Jesus Christ as his Savior.” The only quibble one might have is whether this is a particular one-time experience, or the result of a process–and he answered that in the interview. It’s OK if you don’t believe him, but when he said “Yeah” in that interview, he was saying that he is “saved.”</p>
<p>I think the only question to answer regarding Trinity’s theology, and whether or not it only believes in ‘born-again’ Christians, is whether or not they baptize infants. If they baptize infants, then they do not require a ‘born-again’ event to be a member. </p>
<p>There are many mainline Protestant churches that baptize adults who were never baptized as babies, but I wouldn’t call them born-again churches, because they also baptize babies. </p>
<p>If a church only offers ‘dedications’ or something similar for babies, then they are saying they feel people cannot be baptized until they are mature enough to determine for themselves that they’ve accepted Jesus as their savior.</p>
<p>“Come on, now. The guy attends a church. He knows that being born again means being “saved,” or “accepting Jesus Christ as his Savior.” The only quibble one might have is whether this is a particular one-time experience, or the result of a process–and he answered that in the interview. It’s OK if you don’t believe him, but when he said “Yeah” in that interview, he was saying that he is “saved.””</p>
<p>I know lots of people that attend Church. Sometimes a few times a year, sometimes more regularly, sometimes many times a week, deacons and elders too. Knowledge on doctrinal matters varies all over the place.</p>
<p>The guy is a scholar. It shouldn’t be too hard to write a position paper.</p>
<p>Does being born again really mean being saved? Doesn’t that contradict Revelations 3 and 4? How about Luke 13:22-29? James 2:14?</p>
<p>If you ask someone a question casually, would you expect a lot of thought
or a casual answer? Is being born again something you get or something that you are given? I personally think that his previous answer: “I’m not sure.” is the better one. I personally am not sure what being “born again” means in the main contexts listed in Wikipedia. But it seems pretty easy to poke holes in the whole concept just from the Bible.</p>
<p>“If a church only offers ‘dedications’ or something similar for babies”</p>
<p>My family attended such a ceremony at TUCC about three years ago when a dear friend had a baby. IIRC, there was no baptism.</p>
<p>“It shouldn’t be too hard to write a position paper.”</p>
<p>What’s the source of his duty to write such a position paper?</p>
<p>“What’s the source of his duty to write such a position paper?”</p>
<p>I didn’t write that he has a duty to write such a position paper. However he has put his religious attributes in the public domain and this has resulted in a fair amount of confusion and disagreement. Perhaps he would like to clarify his position to provide clarity on his real positions. If he knows what they are. Many people don’t know what their real religious positions are nor can they provide the reasons for them. In writing them out, one may discover clarity on things that they were formerly vague on.</p>
<p>His leaving is too little too late. At least Oprah had the common sense to leave that church when she found out how racist it was towards whites. Obama is in big trouble if more skeletons come out of the closet. Also, there is talk that there is a video of Michelle speaking in the church calling someone a “whitey” and such. If I were a part of McCain’s campaign, I would wait until it was near election time after Obama was chosen as the Democratic candidate so that it would be an even bigger blow to his chances!
I’m sorry but what excuse does Michelle or Obama have to feel empathy towards Rev. Wright and those who experienced racism in the 60’s and what not? Both were in no way disadvantaged…both went to Ivy league schools, and Michelle even wrote a thesis on something to the effect of how she felt more aware of her “blackness” more than ever before at Princeton and how disadvanteged she was…please, Michelle, that’s not being disadvantaged…I’m sure your race helped you thanks to a little something called afirmative action! I’m sick of this family…Obama’s unexperienced and untrustworthy. McCain’s too liberal and a career politician, so he’s not really any better. I’d rather a Democrat win because the economy will suffer under any of the three candidates. At least it won’t be blamed on a republican then!</p>
<p>Teriwtt, not quibbling, but my mainline Protestant church baptizes infants as a symbol of God’s prevenient grace that will work in their lives through their parents and church. At time of confirmation, confirmands must make a public profession of faith in Christ and a re-affirmation of personal commitment to vows made essentially for them at their baptism. A dramatic “born again” experience may or may not occur, but baptism must occur, and the person entering full membership of the church must make the same statements, vows and affirmations as someone being baptized into an “adult only” Baptist church. In our church it is the public acceptance of Christ that makes you a full member, and this cannot happen for infants.</p>
<p>Cangel, just curious, does your church consider confirmation a sacrament? </p>
<p>Also, I’m referring more to churches that require of their membership, that a person confess that they are born again. While I am aware that some confirmands and adults describe their experience of affirming their faith as being born again, I don’t think mainline Protestant churches require their members to sign a statement of faith declaring that. If you look at the statements of faith on many evangelical, non-denominational websites, most will specifically require its members to claim they are born again. If not, they won’t accept you as a member. I am not aware of any mainline Protestant churches that demand you sign such a statement, although the re-affirmation of their baptism is basically the same premise. </p>
<p>My concern with born-again theologies needed for salvation is that it excludes anyone who does not have the mental or spiritual capacity to make this decision for themselves and that can occur for many reasons. God’s grace obviously provides for those circumstances, but I see too many ‘church’ people and pastors trying to make a judgement on someone’s salvation by taking a very narrow approach to it.</p>
<p>I guess I’ve also had one too many situations where family members have asked me to baptize an incapacitated adult because they believe their loved one will not get to heaven unless they’ve been baptized, or born again. I would also venture to say that I’ve yet to meet a mainline denomination minister who would admit that a non-baptized/non-confirmed person has no chance of going to heaven. However, I know many evangelical pastors and their parishioners who will openly say that to family members.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, what is IIRC?</p>
<p>It doesn’t surprise me that TUCC offers dedications (or such ceremonies), but do they offer infant baptism if that’s what the family feels strongly about? I suspect they do, because as I said in a previous post, UCC churches give an awful lot of autonomy to their local congregations to decide how to best express their faiths. Unfortunately, on their website, they don’t indicate how they interpret the sacrament of baptism.</p>
<p>I’m truly sincere when I say it’s something I’d like to know about TUCC. It would inform me on their soteriology.</p>
<p>IIRC = if i recall correctly.</p>
<p>I just don’t know what they would do to serve an individual family. Bear in mind also that even prior to Rev. Wright’s retirement, there were many ordained pastors working in the church. One might be more receptive than another.</p>
<p>Hanna - one of their members, who has his M.Div, is also a musical theatre coach who has appeared on Broadway (yea, I know… interesting combination). We met him about a year ago when he provided an hour of coaching for my D who was preparing to audition for something in Chicago. I wish I still had his e-mail; I think he’d remember me since he drove up our way to provide the coaching session, and after the session, we discovered and discussed our common backgrounds of having graduate a seminaries in Hyde Park.</p>
<p>I think we only recognize 2 “sacraments” as Sacraments - baptism and communion.
My biggest personal turn-off about independent, “evangelical” churches is the temptation to “make it up as you go along”. We have a body of belief that thoughtful, faithful, bright people get together to debate, pray over and affirm, every 4 years or so - one or two people aren’t responsible for making the whole doctrine.</p>
<p>This stuff is complicated if you want to talk to theologians, but it’s not that complicated for the vast majority of actual churchgoing Christians in this country. If you go to a mainline Protestant Church, such as Methodist, Presbyterian, and (as far as I understand), UCC, infants are baptized, and then people become full members at confirmation. Confirmation requires an affirmation of faith. There is no requirement that a person state that he has been “born again,” but he will have to answer “Yes” to a question such as “Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior…” and others as well. The focus is not on the experience of conversion (or being born again) but in the confession and affirmation. In more evangelical churches, the focus is on an individual experience or decision to believe in Christ as savior, and this experience is generally what is referred to as being “born again.” However, most of those evangelicals will recognize somebody who genuinely believes and accepts Christ as savior as being born again, even if they can’t point to a particular experience. So, in my opinion, when Obama answered an altar call at his church, joined the church (presumably by affirmation of faith), participated in the baptism of his children there (which also typically calls for an affirmation of faith by the parents), and said that he was “born again,” he at the least means that he confesses Jesus Christ as his Savior.</p>
<p>Isn’t the whole point of infant baptism to erase original sin? (Assuming that you believe in original sin…)</p>
<p>I had a quick read on the reason for infant baptism (another topic that I don’t understand) and the reasoning for it looks pretty weak. But apparently there’s a long tradition. Of course there’s nothing explicit in the New Testament, just some words that could be used to imply some things that might imply other things. I’ll have to read about it in more depth later on.</p>
<p>Expecting to find solid reasoning behind any religious practice is probably a mistake. “Reason” is generally not the reason to do it.</p>
<p>The question of infant baptism really is a thorny theological issue, and although I don’t think it’s relevant to Obama, particularly, here’s what I understand about it.<br>
First of all, there are readings of the New Testament that suggest that water baptism is essential for eternal salvation. This, coupled with the doctrine of original sin (which indicates that everybody is born damned), led to the practice of baptizing infants to keep them out of Limbo. I believe that the Catholic Church has changed its doctrine on this over the years, and I’ve read that they no longer teach that unbaptized infants are relegated to Limbo. But perhaps a Catholic poster can explain that.
For mainline Protestant churches, like my own Methodist Church, infant baptism is primarily symbolic. It primarily represents a commitment by the parents to raise the child as a Christian. The church does not teach that water baptism is essential for eternal salvation. In Baptist churches, water baptism is an outward symbol of an internal decision to confess Jesus as Savior. I don’t believe (Baptists correct me if I’m wrong) that Baptist churches teach that baptism is essential for salvation. There are Protestant denominations, such as the Christian Church, that do believe that nobody is saved unless they have been baptized with water after having made a mature decision to confess Christ as savior. So you can’t really generalize too much about any of these things–although all of these churches require a profession of faith for full membership.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess my question would be then, if it’s primarily symbolic representing a parent’s commitment to raise the child as Christian, then why is there such urgency in baptizing babies who are born very sick, and aren’t expected to live? And why would ‘baptism by desire’ be given as the answer to babies who are not baptized before they die?</p>
<p>There isn’t any such urgency for a Methodist, as far as I’ve ever heard. In my church, infants often aren’t baptized until they are almost a year old. What you are describing may be true for Catholics, or may have been more true in the past. I’ve never even heard of “baptism by desire.”</p>
<p>Edited to add: Now I have:</p>
<p>[Baptism</a> of desire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_desire]Baptism”>Baptism of desire - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>This includes a nice explanation of how most Protestants view baptism.</p>