Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

[stewstew03]

I recently attended an evangelical baptist church and witnessed a baptismal ceremony.

Much like in our Catholic faith (and other faiths), baptism is a big deal for baptists/evangelicals, and yet, at the same time, it is unlike our Catholic faith in that – aside from sentiment – it is completely meaningless. It’s simply a public profession of faith and has no effect on the soul.

So, my question for baptists/evangelicals:

1. 
   *]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?
   *]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?

 

[jrtrent]

Much like in our Catholic faith (and other faiths), baptism is a big deal for baptists/evangelicals, and yet, at the same time, it is unlike our Catholic faith in that – aside from sentiment – it is completely meaningless. It’s simply a public profession of faith and has no effect on the soul.

It’s fine for you to have a different understanding on the ordinance of baptism, but it is far from meaningless for Baptists as it is done in obedience to that which was appointed by the Lord Jesus “to be continued in His Church to the end of the world.” 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, chapter 28
1689.com/confession.html

Chapter 29 of the same confession says:

Paragraph 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5
3 Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
4 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
5 Rom. 6:4

Paragraph 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.6
6 Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36,37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8

Paragraph 3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.7
7 Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38

Paragraph 4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.8
8 Matt. 3:16; John 3:23

 

[stewstew03]

It’s fine for you to have a different understanding on the ordinance of baptism, but it is far from meaningless for Baptists as it is done in obedience to that which was appointed by the Lord Jesus “to be continued in His Church to the end of the world.” 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, chapter 28
1689.com/confession.html

Chapter 29 of the same confession says:

Paragraph 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5
3 Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
4 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
5 Rom. 6:4

Paragraph 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.6
6 Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36,37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8

Paragraph 3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.7
7 Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38

Paragraph 4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.8
8 Matt. 3:16; John 3:23

I’m not sure if the Southern Baptists subscribe to this confession of faith. Here is what the SBC says about baptism:

“Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead.”

Thus, it is mere symbolism, and therefore one can provide a statement of his or her beliefs rather than participating in a ceremony.

Also, it seems to me there is no reason why parents (or any other loved one) would not be able to perform the ceremony.

 

[ltwin]

I recently attended an evangelical baptist church and witnessed a baptismal ceremony.

Much like in our Catholic faith (and other faiths), baptism is a big deal for baptists/evangelicals, and yet, at the same time, it is unlike our Catholic faith in that – aside from sentiment – it is completely meaningless. It’s simply a public profession of faith and has no effect on the soul.

So, my question for baptists/evangelicals:

Jrtrent’s post was very good for the Baptist position. I would say that not all evangelicals are exactly the same as Baptists. There are evangelical churches that will baptize infants. Most of the time, evangelical churches that allow infant baptism will give parents the option to have their infants baptized. Article XII. Baptism in the Church of the Nazarene’s Articles of Faith states:

We believe that Christian baptism, commanded by our Lord, is a sacrament signifying acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ, to be administered to believers and declarative of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and full purpose of obedience in holiness and righteousness.

Baptism being a symbol of the new covenant, young children may be baptized, upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of necessary Christian training. Baptism may be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, according to the choice of the applicant.

(Matthew 3:1-7; 28:16-20; Acts 2:37-41; 8:35-39; 10:44-48; 16:29-34; 19:1-6; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:18-22)

 

[ltwin]

Also, it seems to me there is no reason why parents (or any other loved one) would not be able to perform the ceremony.

Anyone can baptize anyone. Different denominations have their own standards for who can administer sacraments/ordinances within a church service so that order is maintained. However, any Christian can baptize a willing person who desires baptism.

 

[stewstew03]

Anyone can baptize anyone. Different denominations have their own standards for who can administer sacraments/ordinances within a church service so that order is maintained. However, any Christian can baptize a willing person who desires baptism.

Really? In which church would it be acceptable for a Catholic layperson to baptize a protestant infant?

 

[jrtrent]

Thus, it is mere symbolism, and therefore one can provide a statement of his or her beliefs rather than participating in a ceremony.

Also, it seems to me there is no reason why parents (or any other loved one) would not be able to perform the ceremony.

It seems you hold symbolism in lower regard than others do. The “ceremony,” if you will, is necessary because it was appointed by Christ to be done. The reason why at least some Baptists don’t allow parents or any other loved one to perform the ceremony is because they believe “These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.” (chapter 28, paragraph 2)

As to the Southern Baptists, I don’t know if they generally subscribe to the 1689 Confession at this time or not. Apparently they might have at their founding:

The first Baptist Association of Churches in America was the Philadelphia Baptist Association (1707).

The Second London Baptist Confession with two articles added; one on “the laying on of hands” and another, “the singing of psalms”, was adopted by the Philadelphia Association in 1742. While it was officially adopted that year, it had been appealed to in the minutes of the Association since the Association’s inception in 1707. The first edition of the “Philadelphia Confession of Faith” was printed by Benjamin Franklin in 1743, known as the Philadelphia, it was essentially the 1689 Second London Confession. It became known in America as “The Baptist Confession” accepted in the north and the south. One significant point relevant to Southern Baptists is that all 293 messengers at the formation of the Southern Baptist Church at the First Baptist Church of Augusta, Georgia, came from associations that embraced this Confession. sbaoc.org/message.php?topicID=25775&

 

[ltwin]

Really? In which church would it be acceptable for a Catholic layperson to baptize a protestant infant?

I never said a non-member of a church would be able to walk into a church and perform ordinances/sacraments. I specifically said that in the church different denominations have their own standards for who can administer ceremonies so that proper order and doctrinal integrity is maintained.

However, if an evangelical couple who believed in infant baptism for some reason wanted a Catholic to baptize their child outside of a church setting, it could happen. Doesn’t really sound plausible, but anything is possible.

You have to understand how evangelicals think about this. The only difference between a Baptist layperson and a Baptist minister is that the minister has heard a call from God to become a minister. To get a church, the minister simply starts his own Baptist church or he is elected as the pastor of a Baptist church by the church’s congregation.

It is a principle of evangelicals that all Christians are priests. The only difference between clergy and laypeople is that the clergyman has been recognized as receiving a call from God for full time ministry and his denomination holds him to standards of personal and public morality befitting a man of God. That is the only difference (also some denominations will give their clergy varying degrees of theological education).

As a layperson, I have the same authority to baptize a willing convert in my swimming pool as an evangelical pastor has the authority to baptize a convert in the church baptismal pool. I also have the authority to pray over and celebrate the Lord’s Supper in my kitchen if I wanted to.

 

[bzkoss236]

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?

Parents can. My wife was baptized by her father.

Even as Catholics we recognize that you don’t need to be ordained to perform a baptism, but is the preferred method. An atheist can baptize someone and be recognized by the Church if it was in proper form and with the correct intention.

 

[stewstew03]

It seems you hold symbolism in lower regard than others do. The “ceremony,” if you will, is necessary because it was appointed by Christ to be done. The reason why at least some Baptists don’t allow parents or any other loved one to perform the ceremony is because they believe “These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.” (chapter 28, paragraph 2)

As to the Southern Baptists, I don’t know if they generally subscribe to the 1689 Confession at this time or not. Apparently they might have at their founding:

The first Baptist Association of Churches in America was the Philadelphia Baptist Association (1707).

The Second London Baptist Confession with two articles added; one on “the laying on of hands” and another, “the singing of psalms”, was adopted by the Philadelphia Association in 1742. While it was officially adopted that year, it had been appealed to in the minutes of the Association since the Association’s inception in 1707. The first edition of the “Philadelphia Confession of Faith” was printed by Benjamin Franklin in 1743, known as the Philadelphia, it was essentially the 1689 Second London Confession. It became known in America as “The Baptist Confession” accepted in the north and the south. One significant point relevant to Southern Baptists is that all 293 messengers at the formation of the Southern Baptist Church at the First Baptist Church of Augusta, Georgia, came from associations that embraced this Confession. sbaoc.org/message.php?topicID=25775&

Is it necessary for salvation?

 

[stewstew03]

Even as Catholics we recognize that you don’t need to be ordained to perform a baptism, but is the preferred method. An atheist can baptize someone and be recognized by the Church if it was in proper form and with the correct intention.

Preferred = ordinary. Otherwise = extraordinary.

 

[jrtrent]

Is it necessary for salvation?

Baptists do not believe in baptismal regeneration, if that’s what you’re getting at. And one can always point to the thief on the cross as someone who was saved without being baptized. Nonetheless, since it is commanded to be done, no Christian should despise Baptism as something they can do or not as they please. For one thing, it is beneficial:

The grace of faith by which the elect are enabled to believe, so that their souls are saved, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily brought into being by the ministry of the Word. It is also increased and strengthened by the work of the Spirit through the ministry of the Word, and also by the administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, prayer, and other means appointed by God. (1689, chapter 14, paragraph 1)

For another, saving faith includes an obedient response to the commands of God and His Word:

By this faith a Christian believes to be true whatever is revealed in the Word because this Word has the authority of God Himself. . . the Christian is enabled to cast his soul upon the Truth he has believed, and to see and respond to the different kinds of teaching which different passages of Scripture contain. Saving faith equips him to perceive and obey the commands, hear the threatenings with fear and respect, and to embrace the promises of God for this life and the life to come. . . (from chapter 14, paragraph 2)

Baptism is clearly commanded, and is therefore necessary. As Spurgeon put it:

Again, baptism is also Faith’s taking her proper place. It is, or should be one of her first acts of obedience. Reason looks at baptism, and says, “Perhaps there is nothing in it; it cannot do me any good.” “True,” says Faith, “and therefore will I observe it. If it did me some good my selfishness would make me do it, but inasmuch as to my sense there is no good in it, since I am bidden by my Lord thus to fulfil all righteousness, it is my first public declaration that a thing which looks to be unreasonable and seems to be unprofitable, being commanded by God, is law, is law to me. If my Master had told me to pick up six stones and lay them in a row I would do it, without demanding of him, ‘What good will it do?’ Cui bono? is no fit question for soldiers of Jesus. The very simplicity and apparent uselessness of the ordinance should make the believer say, ‘Therefore I do it because it becomes the better test to me of my obedience to my Master.’” When you tell your servant to do something, and he cannot comprehend it, if he turns round and says, “Please, sir, what for?” you are quite clear that he hardly understands the relation between master and servant. So when God tells me to do a thing, if I say, “What for?” I cannot have taken the place which Faith ought to occupy, which is that of simple obedience to whatever the Lord hath said. Baptism is commanded, and Faith obeys because it is commanded, and thus takes her proper place. spurgeon.org/sermons/0573.htm

 

[4Squarebaby]

stewstew03:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltwin

Anyone can baptize anyone. Different denominations have their own standards for who can administer sacraments/ordinances within a church service so that order is maintained. However, any Christian can baptize a willing person who desires baptism.

Really? In which church would it be acceptable for a Catholic layperson to baptize a protestant infant?

Leaving out the infant and going to a willing person. Many, especially in the charismatic world the senior pastor is like the leader of a jazz ensemble and that Catholic, if that denomination believes that Roman Catholics are indeed part of the catholic church, that Catholic layperson may be allowed to conduct the baptism of a friend, perhaps the Catholic was an important part of his born again experience, who is making a public profession of faith or help serve communion. It would be internal Catholic church rules which would forbid it.

It is not always the teaching pastor, church elder, or worship leader who acts in such services. However for most it would be out of order for an unknown or even a frequent visiting layperson to step up and demand to do something

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[stewstew03]

… To get a church, the minister simply starts his own Baptist church or he is elected as the pastor of a Baptist church by the church’s congregation.

So, this “Baptist minister” who starts his own church (or is elected by evangelical “cardinals”) is like a Pope?

It is a principle of evangelicals that all Christians are priests. The only difference between clergy and laypeople is that the clergyman has been recognized as receiving a call from God for full time ministry and his denomination holds him to standards of personal and public morality befitting a man of God. That is the only difference (also some denominations will give their clergy varying degrees of theological education).

It sounds like you are making a distinction between the priesthood of the faithful (lay persons) and the ministerial priesthood.

As a layperson, I have the same authority to baptize a willing convert in my swimming pool as an evangelical pastor has the authority to baptize a convert in the church baptismal pool. I also have the authority to pray over and celebrate the Lord’s Supper in my kitchen if I wanted to.

Where would you draw the line? It seems that you might also have the same authority to develop your own doctrine… compile your own canon… start your own church… etc.

:bible1:

 

[4Squarebaby]

So, this “Baptist minister” who starts his own church (or is elected by evangelical “cardinals”) is like a Pope?

He generally doesn’t make the claim that the people belong to him or are under his authority. Although he may try to hold a building and other capital investments under his control. In the case were a pastor is elected by a congregation or leadership council of the local church that effort generally fails. Esp[SIGN][/SIGN]ecially in larger churches with paid clergy there are often stories which make the secular news about Pastor X being forced out by the Deacon board.

He is simply the chief speaker and perhaps the reason, because of his personal charisma, that many in the congregation choose that local church and not the one on the next block

 

[Cat]

A lot of Protestant churches (Evangelical) encourage parents to baptize their children. My husband baptized our daughters during public baptismal services in the church.

We saw this all the time.

 

[ltwin]

So, this “Baptist minister” who starts his own church (or is elected by evangelical “cardinals”) is like a Pope?

Not at all. A minister who begins a new church is like Paul the Apostle. He is a church planter. He goes to an area and begins to preach the gospel and if successful he will gather around him the beginnings of a congregation.

Baptists are congregational. The pastor is the chief spiritual leader of the congregation. It is his responsibility to provide teaching and pastoral guidance to members. But the congregation votes on congregational business matters. The congregation elects deacons to assist the pastor and monitor the business matters of the church.

Neither the pastor or the congregation have any power to create new doctrine.

It sounds like you are making a distinction between the priesthood of the faithful (lay persons) and the ministerial priesthood.

There is no distinction. There is not one priesthood for laity and another priesthood for the clergy. There is only one priesthood, the priesthood of the believer. All Christians have been called to be priests unto God and ministers of the gospel to all people. Some have been called to give up secular employment and devote full time to this work, while those who do not are called to give active personal and financial involvement to this work as God enables them. God has placed various offices within the Church. There are elders/overseers (bishops) and servants (deacons), shepherds (pastors) and teachers, and evangelists. The titles are not important. What is important is that everyone functions according to the ministry and gifts they have been called to and given within the church.

Where would you draw the line? It seems that you might also have the same authority to develop your own doctrine… compile your own canon… start your own church… etc.

You can only do what you have warrant from Scripture to do. If God has called you to plant a congregation, then you should obey that call. All things should be judged by Scripture. It is the measuring rod. Remember, Sola Scriptura.

 

[stewstew03]

A lot of Protestant churches (Evangelical) encourage parents to baptize their children. My husband baptized our daughters during public baptismal services in the church.

We saw this all the time.

Really? This is the first I had ever seen a parent baptize a child at this particular baptist church. And in this case, the father was a “missions pastor” so I’m assuming that is the reason for the exception.

 

[stewstew03]

He generally doesn’t make the claim that the people belong to him or are under his authority…

Neither does the Pope.

He is simply the chief speaker…

And the Bishop of Rome is the “Chief Pastor.”

 

[stewstew03]

…
Neither the pastor or the congregation have any power to create new doctrine.

Or authority to declare what is “true” doctrine…