Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

  • Thread starter Thread starter stewstew03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just to be clear… your position is that baptism has no regenerative effect, but the absence of baptism has a degenerative effect?
If someone has the opportunity to be baptized but refuses to be baptized then they are just being rebellious. It is not the absence of baptism that has a degenerative effect. It is the presence of a spirit of rebellion that would cause a degenerative effect.

Personally, I would not charge someone with rebellion or disobedience who has been baptized as an infant and does not believe that it is necessary for them to be baptized as an adult.

On the other hand, if someone had never been baptized as a child and is 50 years old and has been a practicing Christian for multiple decades and still refuses to be baptized, then that is direct rebellion against the words of Christ and the Apostles as written in Holy Scripture. In that case, individuals are without excuse.

I would also point out that just because something does not have a “regenerative effect” does not mean it is completely void of any effect. Baptism can positively affect the spiritual growth and condition of an individual. It can be a transformative moment in a believer’s life. It was for me. As Pentecostal pastor Wayne Benson writes in “The Urgency of Water Baptism”:
Every new person who is saved has the right to be baptized in water and needs to be baptized as soon as possible. Why jeopardize a new Christian’s spiritual security and development? He needs the strengthening benefits of baptism so he may “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). Let us communicate with passion the urgency of being baptized. Let us teach believers and lead them into all the means of grace provided for them by our wonderful Christ and Lord.
 
Parents who choose not to have their children baptized can have them dedicated instead. “It’s in the handbook” as my Nazarene relatives are wont to say.

I was not making the claim that infant baptism was all the rage among Nazarenes. I have no way of knowing that since I have some relatives that are members but am not one myself.

My point was that they give members a choice. It is commonly assumed that all evangelicals think infant baptism is anathema. My point was that there are evangelical churches that do practice it, even if it rarely happens today.
What struck me was not the absence just for babies, but for anyone at all. I was there for 10 years and in that time I never saw anyone baptized at all, but they had a “baptistery” which was like a pool with a window where the congregation could watch.

But I was only sent and then taken to the morning service. It is entirely possible they were doing the sacraments baptism and Holy Communion at the evening services only?

Since I wasn’t there I can’t say for sure.

That is how I got the impression that the main if not only thing Evangelicals care about is “getting saved”. Since they aren’t Calvinists with OSAS they were “getting saved” over and over.

I remember “altar calls” that went on for over an hour, with the people squatting over a low bench they called an altar, They were very emotional with several boxes of tissues for each bench and they went through a lot of them.
 
Obstinate disobedience to Christ is a sin. The wages of sin is death.
So if baptism is an act of obedience, and refusing to be baptized is an act of obstinate disobedience, resulting in death…

are we agreed that if one refuses baptism he is not saved?
 
Because they believe that that is how Jesus was baptized,
And yet Jesus was baptized in his thirties, by his cousin, in the River Jordan.

Why not make these the criteria for being baptized “how Jesus was baptized”?
 
So if baptism is an act of obedience, and refusing to be baptized is an act of obstinate disobedience, resulting in death…

are we agreed that if one refuses baptism he is not saved?
Well I would argue that a person that refuses baptism isn’t really a Christian. I understand that some Quakers, though, reject both Baptism and Holy Communion as Christian practices. Is a Quaker not really saved?

Far be it from me to say who is saved and who isn’t. But I would question whether a person who converted to a major Christian sect like Evangelicalism or Catholicism and declined to be baptized had sincerely adopted the faith.

But again, what do we say about people like Quakers?
 
Well I would argue that a person that refuses baptism isn’t really a Christian. I understand that some Quakers, though, reject both Baptism and Holy Communion as Christian practices. Is a Quaker not really saved?

Far be it from me to say who is saved and who isn’t. But I would question whether a person who converted to a major Christian sect like Evangelicalism or Catholicism and declined to be baptized had sincerely adopted the faith.

But again, what do we say about people like Quakers?
Then we are agreed, it appears, that baptism is required for salvation. Yes?
 
Then we are agreed, it appears, that baptism is required for salvation. Yes?
For me personally it is inconceivable to be Christian and not be baptized or partake in Communion. But what do we say about Quakers and Salvationists? Are those two groups excluded from “the rule”?
 
For me personally it is inconceivable to be Christian and not be baptized or partake in Communion.
Excellent.

And Peter agrees with you. 🙂

[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 3:21[/BIBLEDRB]
But what do we say about Quakers and Salvationists? Are those two groups excluded from “the rule”?
I answer with the words of Jesus when he was asked a similar question: strive to enter. 🤷
 
If it had no affect on my soul, why did my parents to do this for me? For the heck of it?
If it has no affect on my soul, why is it ok for the Catholic Church to accept my Methodist baptism? The Catholic Church accepts one baptism only, even from another church as long as it is done properly. Done properly, it cannot be done again, so to the Church, it must have had an effect on my soul or they would do it again but for the first time. Yes?
Are you Mormon? You have a picture of Jesus in your sig from the LDS sites.
 
What struck me was not the absence just for babies, but for anyone at all. I was there for 10 years and in that time I never saw anyone baptized at all, but they had a “baptistery” which was like a pool with a window where the congregation could watch.
In my experience (again not in Nazarene Churches) the time, place and frequency of baptism can depend on a lot of factors. Perhaps the church is not making many converts? Perhaps the minister and members don’t really place an emphasis on encouraging new converts to be baptized? I can’t really provide much insight into that particular congregation. However, I know that as a whole and in their church documents that the Nazarene Church does practice baptism and Holy Communion.
But I was only sent and then taken to the morning service. It is entirely possible they were doing the sacraments baptism and Holy Communion at the evening services only?
I don’t know. When I was a child, I attended a Baptist friend’s baptism, and it was at a night service. So, it is possible that these services were performed outside of the regular Sunday services. I know that my church (again not a Nazarene Church) in the past tended to have communion service on Sunday nights. More recently, however, we’ve been having them on Sunday mornings.

I do know that the Church of the Nazarene’s 2009-2013 Manual has an entire section on “Ritual” in which it gives 3 possible ceremonies: believer’s baptism, infant baptism, and dedication for infants or young children (for those parents who choose not to have their child baptized).

The believer’s baptismal rite begins:
DEARLY BELOVED: Baptism is the sign and seal of the new covenant of grace, the significance of which is attested by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans as follows:
Romans 6:3-5 is read. Then the Apostle’s Creed is read, and the individual being baptized is asked will he/she “be baptized into this faith?” Responding yes, the individual is then asked, “Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, and do you realize that He saves you now?” After responding in the affirmative, the person is asked, “Will you obey God’s holy will and keep His commandments, walking in them all the days of your life?” After answering in the affirmative, the person is baptized according to their preferred method, sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, they are baptized using the Trinitarian formula.

The infant baptism rite begins with minister speaking to the child’s sponsors:
DEARLY BELOVED: The sacrament of baptism is the sign and seal of the new covenant of grace. While we do not hold that baptism imparts the regenerating grace of God, we do believe that Christian baptism signifies for this young child God’s acceptance within the community of Christian faith on the basis of prevenient grace. It anticipates his (her) personal confession of faith in Jesus Christ.
What then follows is that the sponsors and then the congregation itself pledge to raise or support the parents in raising the child in the Christian faith and holiness of life. Then prayer is offered over the child’s life. The dedication of infants is similar with the exception of baptism.
That is how I got the impression that the main if not only thing Evangelicals care about is “getting saved”. Since they aren’t Calvinists with OSAS they were “getting saved” over and over.
No, they do not believe in OSAS. They believe salvation can be lost.
I remember “altar calls” that went on for over an hour, with the people squatting over a low bench they called an altar, They were very emotional with several boxes of tissues for each bench and they went through a lot of them.
This is hard to explain since the Holiness churches, including the Nazarene Church, have changed so much in recent years that old doctrines that were once very important are no longer emphasized with as much rigor or in the same ways they once were.

The Nazarene Church believes in what is called “Entire Sanctification” which is an experience of full consecration and devotion to the work and will of Christ in holiness and submission.

While its true that many go to the altar to “get saved,” others will go to “get sanctified.” Holiness and penance is an ongoing reality of the Christian life. It does not end when we have a conversion experience, on the contrary, that is just the beginning. Therefore, throughout our lives we will need to “lay hold to the horns of the altar” and not let go until we get the victory and the breakthrough.

Of course, I’m aware that like other evangelicals, the altar call is not as universal among Nazarenes as it once was.
 
So if baptism is an act of obedience, and refusing to be baptized is an act of obstinate disobedience, resulting in death…

are we agreed that if one refuses baptism he is not saved?
Not actually. As I said to stewstew03:
If someone has the opportunity to be baptized but refuses to be baptized then they are just being rebellious. It is not the absence of baptism that has a degenerative effect. It is the presence of a spirit of rebellion that would cause a degenerative effect.
This may be a small difference to some, but it isn’t for me. What if someone was baptized without the Trinitarian formula but has been saved and washed by the blood of Jesus? Most Christians would say that that non-Trinitarian baptism was not a baptism. Is this person actually rebelling against Jesus by having been baptized according to the formula provided for in Acts 2:38 rather than the formula provided in Matthew 28? I don’t think so. Is a true believer washed in the blood and saved by faith who for reasons completely unrelated to rebellion against Christ’s command dies without being baptized somehow not saved on a technicality? I think not.

But if someone just refuses to do what Christ said do in baptism, it ain’t looking too good. However, far be it from me to declare who is “really” saved and who is not. That is something God works out. But baptism is pretty elemental, and if you can’t get that then it is concerning.
 
And yet Jesus was baptized in his thirties, by his cousin, in the River Jordan.

Why not make these the criteria for being baptized “how Jesus was baptized”?
Because everyone can’t go to the river Jordan. My church settles on the lake at the Presbyterian’s camp grounds. 🙂

Also, haven’t you heard, John the Baptist is dead.

Anyway, this isn’t my argument. I’m trying to foster the dialogue by explaining the reasons some evangelicals have. I don’t care how you are baptized. Dunking, sprinkling, spitting is all ok as far as I’m concerned! If it’s an emergency, it can be done in my bath tub for all I care.
 
If baptism is merely a public profession of faith, why go through the trouble of building a baptismal pool? And, incidentally, where is the scriptural justification for building baptismal pools and using them as public professions of faith?
We are commanded to baptize. Therefore, it’s important. Being obedient is worth the “trouble.”
Where do baptist/evangelical ministers get their authority for baptizing “born-again” Christians? Why not let the parents of a child, for example, conduct the baptismal ceremony?
We let parents baptize their children.
 
If baptism is merely a public profession of faith, why go through the trouble of building a baptismal pool? And, incidentally, where is the scriptural justification for building baptismal pools and using them as public professions of faith?
Our Lord commands us to be baptized and we are told to obey his commands, why does it matter what source or body of water it is done in? If you want to go get your friends down to the river and do it, go for it. Pools are just convenient on-site sources of water for baptism.
Where do baptist/evangelical ministers get their authority for baptizing “born-again” Christians? Why not let the parents of a child, for example, conduct the baptismal ceremony?
It isnt a matter of authority in most churches, and many people are baptised by their father or the person who led them to Christ.

Assuming one must be baptized to be saved or that the one baptizing must have some sort of divine authority places limits on God’s saving grace, as if somehow he can’t save a truly repentant follower of Christ simply because they werent dunked in water.
 
For me personally it is inconceivable to be Christian and not be baptized or partake in Communion. But what do we say about Quakers and Salvationists? Are those two groups excluded from “the rule”?
There is a footnote in J. C. Ryle’s book Knots Untied that wonders about this, too. Ryle was an evangelical and reformed voice in the Anglican church of the mid to late 1800’s who was opposed to the Liberal Catholic direction the church was moving in.

I am quite aware that the whole body of Christians called Friends, or Quakers, reject water-baptism, and allow of no baptism except the inward baptism of the heart. To their own Master they must stand or fall. I am not their Judge. The grace, faith, and holiness of many Quakers are beyond all question. They are simple matters of fact. Christians like Mrs. Fry and J. J. Gurney most evidently had received the Holy Ghost, and would reflect honour on any Church. Would God that many baptized Christians were like them! But the best people are fallible at their best. How people, so sensible and well read as many Quakers have been and are, can possibly refuse to see water-baptism in Scripture, as an ordinance obligatory on all professing Christians, is a problem which I cannot pretend to solve. It passes my understanding. I can only suppose that God allows the Quakers to be a perpetual testimony against Romish views of water-baptism, and a standing witness to the Churches that God can, in some cases, give grace without the use of any sacraments at all!
 
Assuming one must be baptized to be saved or that the one baptizing must have some sort of divine authority places limits on God’s saving grace, as if somehow he can’t save a truly repentant follower of Christ simply because they werent dunked in water.
How does it place limits on God? That does not make sense to me. See Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22.

Scripture is very clear on the grace we gain from baptism.
 
Because everyone can’t go to the river Jordan. My church settles on the lake at the Presbyterian’s camp grounds. 🙂
I don’t think there’s any Scriptural evidence for being able to make accommodations for this.

Bottom line: you are *not *baptizing “the way Jesus was” baptized. He was not baptized on a lake in a camp ground.
Also, haven’t you heard, John the Baptist is dead.
This sarcastic comment is beneath you, ltwin. Sarcasm is the protest of the weak.

Jesus was baptized by his cousin. So if you want to proclaim that your church baptizes “the way Jesus was”, then you ought to be mandating that you all be baptized by your cousin.
 
What if someone was baptized without the Trinitarian formula but has been saved and washed by the blood of Jesus?
I don’t understand the question. How is he “saved and washed by the blood of Jesus” as opposed to any other non-baptized, say, Muslim?
But if someone just refuses to do what Christ said do in baptism, it ain’t looking too good. However, far be it from me to declare who is “really” saved and who is not. That is something God works out. But baptism is pretty elemental, and if you can’t get that then it is concerning.
Yep. Pretty much. It sounds like you are saying that baptism is necessary for salvation.
 
I don’t understand the question. How is he “saved and washed by the blood of Jesus” as opposed to any other non-baptized, say, Muslim?

Yep. Pretty much. It sounds like you are saying that baptism is necessary for salvation.
There are some that believe in the washed by blood baptism. I believe Quakers are of that belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top