Baptists and Baptism

[hizstory]

In the book Baptists in America, during a review of the Baptists origins in Europe, it was noted that the first Baptist congregation actually baptized by pouring water over the person three times (once for ea ch name of the Trinity). Within a few years they switched to baptism by immersion. I find it laughably ironic that the first Baptists baptized by pouring and not immersion. My Southern Baptist mother didn’t see the humor though.

Leonard, Bill J. Baptists in America. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.

 

[Zenas]

In the book Baptists in America, during a review of the Baptists origins in Europe, it was noted that the first Baptist congregation actually baptized by pouring water over the person three times (once for ea ch name of the Trinity). Within a few years they switched to baptism by immersion. I find it laughably ironic that the first Baptists baptized by pouring and not immersion. My Southern Baptist mother didn’t see the humor though.

Leonard, Bill J. Baptists in America. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.

This is true. You must remember that the first Baptists were Anglicans before they became Baptists. The idea of immersion came from the Greek word baptizo, the primary meaning of which was “to immerse” or “to dip.” Also, they noticed scriptural passages like Romans 6:4, which speaks of being buried with Christ in baptism. Pretty soon total immersion was the only baptism they thought about.

Bill Leonard, by the way, is an excellent source. He is very knowledgeable and isn’t entangled in fundamentalism like a lot of Baptist writers.

 

[wed2catholic]

I don’t think this is accurate. It seems to me that Baptists most certainly DO find it “necessary for them” to be baptized. The difference is in how they characterize it. They think if it as an “ordinance” rather than a Sacrament, and don’t believe it confers grace, or has supernatural effects on the recipient.

They consider it a commandment of Christ, and if one does not follow it, one cannot be presumed to belong to Christ. If I am wrong, I trust one of our Baptist brethren will correct me,

I am not Baptist now, but I used to be. Some Baptists may take the view that you do not belong to Christ if you do not get baptized later. However, the Baptist churches that I was a part of did not view it that way. You were still “saved” if you did not get baptized, but you were living in disobedience. I was considered “saved” at the age of 5, but was not baptized until age 7. In one church I attended you could not take communion (Lord’s Supper) unless you were baptized, and in another chuch you could take communion even if you had not been baptized.

 

[wed2catholic]

I suppose there are many varieties of Baptists?

Yes, there are many different types of Baptists. . .independent, southern, regular, missionary, primitive, seventh day. These are just the ones I know about. Each of them have pretty similar core beliefs, but they do vary in some of their doctrines and especially in their standards.

 

[Qwikness]

It seems like baptism is an initiation like what circumcision was for Judaism. Babies are circumcised for the Jews, no faith required, only the faith of the parents. They would then be brought up and taught the faith. So if Baptism the new circumcision wouldn’t that further strengthen the case against the necessity of faith before baptism.

 

[Wandering_Home]

This is a great discussion! I have learned so much from everyone. I also greatly appreciate the respect on this board for people of all beliefs and that there is no mud-slinging, etc.

I am converting Catholic next year. I was baptized in an Episcopal church as an infant. I grew up going to Catholic schools all of my life. So as an adult I was very confused by my husbands family, who is Southern Baptist, saying that I had to be baptized again as an adult. Even understanding where they came from, I just couldn’t not see biblically that I needed to be baptized again as an adult. I felt that it was an “over-ride” or a “do over”. Who are we to over-ride God? I was validly baptized in the name of the trinity. So while I love my husbands family and met many wonderful people in the Baptist church I knew that I had to return to the Catholic church based on this and other reasons I won’t go into since that would be OT.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

It seems like baptism is an initiation like what circumcision was for Judaism. Babies are circumcised for the Jews, no faith required, only the faith of the parents. They would then be brought up and taught the faith. So if Baptism the new circumcision wouldn’t that further strengthen the case against the necessity of faith before baptism.

Good point I have a hard time understanding The Baptist philosophy on this.
Way do some baptist churches state full immersion is the only valid baptism
No where in the bible does it state Christ’s baptism was by full immersion or it was to only be done that way to be valid!

Matthew

 

[Zenas]

It seems like baptism is an initiation like what circumcision was for Judaism. Babies are circumcised for the Jews, no faith required, only the faith of the parents. They would then be brought up and taught the faith. So if Baptism the new circumcision wouldn’t that further strengthen the case against the necessity of faith before baptism.

Baptism is indeed the Christian equivalent of circumcision, although my Baptist brothers would prefer not to look at it that way.

*In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. * Colossians 2:11-12.

However, there is not a single instance in scripture of a person being baptized without first expressing belief (with the possible exception of the household baptisms—Cornelius, Lydia & the Philippian jailer). They were all adults. In fact, most Bible translations relate the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch like this:

*As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. * Acts 8:36-38.

Of course, it was the First Century when Christianity was new and no one had been born into a Christian family.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Exactly! So why wait for baptism? I can see waiting for confirmation and the other sacraments, but not for baptism.

This is speculation on my part: at the very first, people were baptized right away, but it turned out that not all of them were quality, but some fell away under duress, or turned out not to have faith after all. “Cowards,” as John calls them. So, in an attempt to ensure genuine converts, the Church began to require a period of time, or scrutiny, for both the prospective convert and the Church to become acquainted with one another. Catechumens. This was so a catechumen wouldn’t get baptized on a whim, or for some improper motive.

Of course, a catechumen with genuine desire who gets run over by a chariot or a truck on the way to baptism will count as being baptized. Baptism of desire. God won’t hold it against them.

 

[Qwikness]

As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. Acts 8:36-38.

Yes I heard this quote a couple of weeks ago and looked it up. Its different for Catholics. This verse 37 is missing and only included in a footnote in our bibles saying this:

[37] The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ "

It was believed to be an addition to the original text in 2nd or 3rd century.

usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts8.htm

 

[Zenas]

Yes I heard this quote a couple of weeks ago and looked it up. Its different for Catholics. This verse 37 is missing and only included in a footnote in our bibles saying this:

It was believed to be an addition to the original text in 2nd or 3rd century.

usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts8.htm

It depends on which Catholic translaton you are using. The Douay-Rheims version says:

And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.

A number of Protestant bibles also have that footnote about it not being found in the oldest and best manuscripts. I’m not a Greek scholar so I just don’t know. However, that same footnote will be found for other passages such as Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and John 5:3-4. I don’t think those are spurious passages. For what it’s worth, I agree that infant baptism should be the norm but I’m just pointing out that scripture is not 100% clear on this.

 

[vickimonica]

I help with RCIA classes at my parrish. If you have had a Christian Baptism (In the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), you do not have to be rebaptized when you come into the Catholic Church. You will be Confirmed and receive your First Communium during the Easter Vigil Mass. You must be Re Baptised if you were Baptised as a Mormon, or as a JW. (From what I understand, they do not Baptise using the Holy Trinity).
I have had many conversations with individuals of the Baptist faith. They always ask me if I have been “saved”. Uh, I think so - I believe everything that I profess in The Creed. The “Saved” question from them in my opinion is just wording on their part…

 

[wbthrower]

I don’t get Baptists. I found out recently they believe that Baptism isn’t necessary. Faith comes first and when it does, a person is “saved” then the Baptism may follow. Of course the person has to be completely submerged. If Faith is so important, why even baptize at all? If baptism isn’t so important then why require submersion?

on a lighter note, why do they call themselves “Baptists” why not Faithists.

I think that they combine the 2 sacraments of:

(A) Confirmation

(B) Baptism

into what they believe as Baptism. Hence the reason why they do not baptize infants or children under a certain age.

 

[guanophore]

I have had many conversations with individuals of the Baptist faith. They always ask me if I have been “saved”. Uh, I think so - I believe everything that I profess in The Creed. The “Saved” question from them in my opinion is just wording on their part…

No, it is not just wording. They reject the Apostolic Teaching on the nature of salvation. They believe that a person is “saved” when they believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord, and make a confession of faith. They reject that baptism regenerates, and they reject that we must work out our salvation during this life.

 

[Zenas]

I have had many conversations with individuals of the Baptist faith. They always ask me if I have been “saved”. Uh, I think so - I believe everything that I profess in The Creed. The “Saved” question from them in my opinion is just wording on their part…

No, it’s not just wording on their part. Some (by no means all) Baptists are unsure of whether Catholics are saved. They believe Catholics depend on faith + works for their salvation, which they regard as complete heresy. Baptists and most other protestants believe faith is all that is necessary. Nothing else matters—not good works, not baptism, not even church membership. Moreover, being saved is a one time experience that is always permanent. I never gave this concept much thought until one day I saw a bumper sticker that read, “Christians aren’t perfect, they’re just forgiven.” That slogan, as much as anything else, started me to seriously contemplate the concept of being saved because I know a lot of Christians who I’m pretty sure are not forgiven. However, if you believe in “once saved always saved” it is likely that you believe you are forgiven of all sins—past, present and future—in one fell swoop. Therefore, if you are a Christian you are forgiven.

On the other hand, if they don’t know you are a Catholic, they are probably on a fishing expedition for souls. Baptists are very mission minded and take the Great Commission very seriously. If you answered “No”, they would follow up with telling you about the plan of salvation.

 

[vickimonica]

Well then I guess I am “saved”. I believe that God sent his son Jesus to Earth to die for my sins on the cross. I believe because of this precious sacrifice that I have been forgiving for my sins.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, I was baptized by immersion in a Baptist church, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and was told my baptism is valid.

Indeed it is valid. However,many Christians do not baptize under the Trinitarian Formula,thus those baptisms are considered illicit.

 

[Nicea325]

I help with RCIA classes at my parrish. If you have had a Christian Baptism (In the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), you do not have to be rebaptized when you come into the Catholic Church. You will be Confirmed and receive your First Communium during the Easter Vigil Mass. You must be Re Baptised if you were Baptised as a Mormon, or as a JW. (From what I understand, they do not Baptise using the Holy Trinity).
I have had many conversations with individuals of the Baptist faith. They always ask me if I have been “saved”. Uh, I think so - I believe everything that I profess in The Creed. The “Saved” question from them in my opinion is just wording on their part…

Yes you have been ‘saved’ by virtue of baptism. We as Catholics just do not go around saying: I am saved,I am saved simply because one has been baptized.

 

[Bianconeri]

Ofcourse baptism is an important step, with that you symbolize your faith and duty for God. But the real deal behind it all is your own faith, not baptism. Baptism makes it public, but doesnt changes your way of thinking or whatever.

Still baptism is a step you have to make, although not as many do as a child.
You should do it when a bit older and that you can make decisions for yourself.
Instead of your parents who decide it, also completely submerged instead of sprankling a bit of water.