Bob,Ithe sign of the cross is not a cheap shot......but the puritans within the Church of England wanted it removed at the Hamton Court Conference in 1604. One gets the feeling that there are Anglican persons in Sydney who wish they had won through!

Robert
The cheap shot was your throwaway line: “the likes of Bob Cameron”.  I don’t much like being used as a stereotype, as I’m sure you don’t.
Bob

Some Sydney Anglicans make the sign of the cross and not in Baptism, but when they pray. I have experienced some churches with people crossing themeselves at various parts of the service.

To me it is a non-essential extra, just as I don’t have bull bars on my car, so I don’t make the sign of the cross when praying. Will my prayer be any less effectual if I do or don’t make a sign of the cross? No. Insteresting that Tertullian’s comments on the furrowed (or was it forrowed?) brow is different to the usual practice, except in Anglican baptism.

It was a compliment really Bob, as I see you as Mr Average Sydney Rector...not like the high flyers destined for senior management. I think you sound a good down to earth practical and pastoral minister.I just wish you would face up to Church history and the reality of the Catholic claims.

Hmmm . . . not sure I feel any better after that, but thanks anyway.  Not biting on the last sentence; maybe another day.

Dear Bob
Could I just say that I find you one of the more respectful contributors on these forums.  I appreciate your Godliness.
Donna

Donna Green - 12 October 2008 09:19 AM

Dear Bob
Could I just say that I find you one of the more respectful contributors on these forums.  I appreciate your Godliness.
Donna

It is always a pleasure to debate intelligently with civility and a desire to recognise the strength of an opposing point of view, even if at times we also enjoy the cut and thrust of the debate in the pursuit of truth and winning the argument.

Far more binds Catholic, Protestants and Orthodox together than separates, even though on this forum we have debated serious disagreements, but we do so hopefully recognising that Jesus will sort out the confusion one day and we will all have a good laugh even as we wonder how we got things so wrong, even if, unfortunately, at times, doing so with malice, envy and pride. What strange creatures we are! Lord have mercy on us, give us generous spirits, even in the fray!

I wish everyone a blessed Lord’s Day!

David
That’s my fave post for the week!
Thanks.

It was a cheap shot, Bob.  Your quotation of the words associated with the signing of the cross in baptism liturgy took me by surprise, because I am new enough within the Anglican Church to be only familiar with the form of words in APBA -” I sign you with the sign of the cross to show that you are marked as Christ’s own forever.  Live as a disciple of Christ: fight the good fight, run the race, keep the faith.”

I must admit that as a newcomer to the Anglican church I found those particular words very powerful, and they always bring to my mind the images in the Revelation about being marked on the forehead.

So far as the general practice of signing ourselves with the cross goes, I recently read a book by an orthodox theologian explaining that the practice has its roots in the very early life of the church and so for the likes of David Palmer, who maintain “that at the time of the Reformation, there was a concerted effort to get back to Bible and the practice of the earliest Christians,” this practice should fall within that time frame.

The book I read explained as Greg did that the sign had a lot to do with the affirmation of the Trinity, but it also explained that it had two quite different meanings. 

Firstly, it was very much about declaring our affinity with and taking upon ourselves the cross of Christ.  To me this is a most profound Christian declaration and I have no shame or misgivings in making it.

But this author says that even more significantly it is an act of self-blessing that is legitimately open to the laity.  I won’t try to explain his theological arguement because I am sure I would misrepresent it, and I would rather that it did not become a matter of conetention in this thread.

I have a great respect for the ritual practices of the orthodox church that seek to give a tangible dimension to the spiritual life.  The comments about sacrament by Michael and Ken seem to suggest that there is a place for symbolic gesture as a sign of what God is doing in a life, and I agree.  There will always be a risk of such gesture becoming corruoted, but in tis essence it can onyl be good.

Hi John
Although in my previous parish we did conduct APBA services I have only rarely used the APBA order for baptism.  I think it has complicated what should be a very simple but profound service.  The form of words in BCP (which AAPB is modelled on) is:

We receive this Child into the congregation of Christ’s flock, *and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner, against sin, the world, and the devil; and to continue Christ’s faithful soldier and servant unto his life’s end.  Amen. 
[* here the Priest shall make a Cross upon the Child’s forehead.]

Ughhhh. So glad my church doesn’t use a faith-destroying liturgy like the BCP now…

Dannii Willis - 16 October 2008 02:12 PM

Ughhhh. So glad my church doesn’t use a faith-destroying liturgy like the BCP now…

Oh dear Dannii, that’s two not especially helpful posts in a row (cf Synod 2008 thread).  Did you wake up with a headache this morning?

The BCP is not a faith-destroying liturgy.  I know of people who have come to faith in Christ (and I’m talking about in the last couple of decades) simply through attending BCP services.

What is a barrier to faith is the inappropriate use or continuation of BCP services in contexts where it is culturally foreign—which, I would agree, accounts for about 99.9% of Australia.

Bob

While I am not an advocate of the BCP liturgies for contemporary use, I have to comment that the English in them is far superior to that found in the KJV of the Bible, even though they are relatiuvely contemporaneous.

Just as we have up-dating translations of the Bible to reflect changes in language use, so we need to update the liturgies - and we do.

Yeah maybe I shouldn’t be posting when I’m tired ;)

It’s a little off-topic, but this is a silly topic anyway so I don’t really care… Anything which calls an infant part of the congregation of Christ’s flock is denying the real faith of those who are in his flock. Anyone who participates in that baptism service is anti-gospel.

Wow
So you believe that Anglicans, Presbyterians and everyone else who baptises infants is anti-gospel?  I’m sure there’s an infant baptism thread somewhere where you could pursue that line of argument.  If not you could always start one.
Bob