Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

[ltwin]

Or authority to declare what is “true” doctrine…

Most churches have specific ideas on what “true” doctrine is already, so unless some new belief arises which the church must respond to new determinations of what is true is not necessary.

For example, Baptist churches believe that baptism must be believer’s baptism by immersion. They declare that this is true all the time when they refuse to recognize any other baptism.

 

[stewstew03]

Most churches have specific ideas on what “true” doctrine is already, so unless some new belief arises which the church must respond to new determinations of what is true is not necessary.

For example, Baptist churches believe that baptism must be believer’s baptism by immersion. They declare that this is true all the time when they refuse to recognize any other baptism.

Have never quite understood that either - baptism is symbolic, but a certain form is required to be a valid symbol? Huh…?

 

[aspirant]

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.

I don’t think that they would consider it legit to call a “public profession of faith” in Christ “completely meaningless.” Neither, as a Catholic, would I, for that matter.

In order to become a Catholic, for example, a non-Catholic adult Christian must make a public profession of faith. I don’t consider public profession of faith in Christ’s Church a “completely meaningless” act.

my question for baptists/evangelicals:

If baptism is merely a public profession of faith, why go through the trouble of building a baptismal pool?

I am not a Baptist or Evangelical, but I don’t think answers are terribly obscure or difficult to understand. Baptists and Evangelicals believe that public baptism is (at the very least) one of the many ways Christians profess and demonstrate obedience and fidelity to Christ. Many of them also believe that baptism should be done by immersion in water. A clean and easily visible pool is a nice place to do this, so many consider the pool worth building, if the means to do so are available.

Where do baptist/evangelical ministers get their authority for baptizing “born-again” Christians?

Like us, they do not generally believe that ordination (either as we understand it or as they understand it) is prerequisite to conferring baptism.

Why not let the parents of a child, for example, conduct the baptismal ceremony?

I think some do.

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.

Yes. I know Evangelicals who belong to congregations that will baptize infants if the parents are willing.

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

If my friends wanted me to baptize their child, and the child and I were both willing, I don’t think the leaders of the congregation would oppose it. It would be an unusual request, not particularly likely to happen, but (based on what I know of their church) not one I think they would necessarily oppose.

 

[4Squarebaby]

Have never quite understood that either - baptism is symbolic, but a certain form is required to be a valid symbol? Huh…?

There is a difference between being saved and being willing to publically step forward as a first step to being a voting member of that specific congregation.

 

[ltwin]

Have never quite understood that either - baptism is symbolic, but a certain form is required to be a valid symbol? Huh…?

It is a symbol in that it symbolizes the interior work of Christ in the life of the true believer. The act of being dipped in water does not bring regeneration. It is being immersed and buried in Christ and rising a new Creation in him that actually regenerates.

The symbol of baptism strengthens and confirms this work of Christ in us by 1) publicly identifying us with the work of Christ, 2) giving us another opportunity to renew our commitment to Christ, examine our consciences and deepen our understanding of the gospel, and to fulfill righteousness in obedience, and 3) it gives those who witness it an opportunity to see and hear the gospel proclamation. If witnessing a baptism does not produce an instant conversion, this at least plants a seed in the mind/heart of a non-believer and allows confessing believers to once again recall and confirm their own baptismal commitments.

For those who take part in the symbol in true faith, it is a powerful opportunity to encounter the sustaining grace of Christ.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

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.

This is essentially the most clear-cut explanation of baptism for Evangelical Christianity.

As Itwin and others have also stated, a “symbol” means a great deal to Evangelical Christians. Even if baptism is not considered to be actually regenerative, what it “symbolizes” matters a great deal, and it is not considered “relegation” to believe it to be “merely” a symbol. It’s not “merely” anything.

 

[stewstew03]

It is a symbol in that it symbolizes the interior work of Christ in the life of the true believer. The act of being dipped in water does not bring regeneration. It is being immersed and buried in Christ and rising a new Creation in him that actually regenerates.

I think everyone will agree… it’s not the H2O that regenerates. But is water a necessary element from your perspective?

The symbol of baptism strengthens and confirms this work of Christ in us by 1) publicly identifying us with the work of Christ,

Support for this in scripture?

1. giving us another opportunity to renew our commitment to Christ, examine our consciences and deepen our understanding of the gospel, and to fulfill righteousness in obedience,

Support for this in scripture?

and 3) it gives those who witness it an opportunity to see and hear the gospel proclamation.

Support for this in scripture?

 

[stewstew03]

This is essentially the most clear-cut explanation of baptism for Evangelical Christianity.

As Itwin and others have also stated, a “symbol” means a great deal to Evangelical Christians. Even if baptism is not considered to be actually regenerative, what it “symbolizes” matters a great deal, and it is not considered “relegation” to believe it to be “merely” a symbol. It’s not “merely” anything.

Sure - symbols have meaning, I can go along with that. But surely one can find other ways to express one’s faith without being dipped into the baptismal pool.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Sure - symbols have meaning, I can go along with that. But surely one can find other ways to express one’s faith without being dipped into the baptismal pool.

That’s true, but baptism is clearly scriptural and is commanded by Jesus Christ himself. It doesn’t seem logical that a person who has professed to want to convert to Christianity would refuse one of the most basic and revered ordinances of the faith.

A true Christian simply would not do so.

 

[stewstew03]

That’s true, but baptism is clearly scriptural and is commanded by Jesus Christ himself.
…

And why would he command it, if not for the sake of one’s soul?

 

[Cat]

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.

Yes, really.

Also, perhaps someone else already mentioned this in your thread. Baptists and other Evangelical denominations do NOT believe in “sacraments.”

I think you should be pleased that you actually saw a baptismal service. We converted to Catholicism in 2004. One of the problems we were seeing in Evangelical churches is that there were very few baptismal services. The church we were attending only held a baptismal service once a year. (When we grew up, it was once a month, and in some of the churches we attended, baptisms were held every week.) It seems that a lot of the Evangelical churches are not really emphasizing baptism as a “requirement” for church membership. It’s never been a “requirement” to become a Christian; all that’s needed for that is to ask Jesus into your heart to be your personal Savior.

This lack of attention to baptism made me and my husband very sad.

And even more sad, it seemed like communion (remember, it’s not a sacrament in the Evangelical churches) was offered less and less. In our church, communion services were held 4 times a year, and this was during a Sunday evening service (which was sparsely attended).

Since communion and baptism were just “symbols,” I can understand why they were being done less and less.

However, what we started wondering is whether eventually, “marriage” would also be done only a few times a year. After all, as long as you’re tossing the old symbolic traditions, why not toss out marriage, too?

OTOH, I just received a newsletter from an Evangelical group that I still communicate with, and they just finished holding a “Confession” in which Christians were encouraged to confess their sins and seek the Lord’s forgiveness. It sounds like the Confessions were done in private with just a pastor or a fellow believer. But still, it’s encouraging to read about an Evangelical group that’s trying to restore the traditions rather than toss them!

I guess what I’m trying to say (rambling-style) is that you really can’t ever make any generalizations about Protestant churches and denominations, especially Evangelical denominations. It just depends on who the pastor is and who the leaders of the denomination are.

 

[ltwin]

I think everyone will agree… it’s not the H2O that regenerates. But is water a necessary element from your perspective?

No. The necessary elements are the Holy Spirit, the Word of Christ, faith, and repentance.

Support for this in scripture?

Galatians 3:26-27: “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”

Colossians 2:11-12: “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

Support for this in scripture?

Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”

Matthew 28:19-20: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

Matthew 3:15: “it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”

Support for this in scripture?

What, the obvious real world situation of people witnessing the proclamation of the gospel illustrated is not enough of a reason to do something?

 

[stewstew03]

Yes, really.

Also, perhaps someone else already mentioned this in your thread. Baptists and other Evangelical denominations do NOT believe in “sacraments.”

I think you should be pleased that you actually saw a baptismal service. We converted to Catholicism in 2004. One of the problems we were seeing in Evangelical churches is that there were very few baptismal services. The church we were attending only held a baptismal service once a year. (When we grew up, it was once a month, and in some of the churches we attended, baptisms were held every week.) It seems that a lot of the Evangelical churches are not really emphasizing baptism as a “requirement” for church membership. It’s never been a “requirement” to become a Christian; all that’s needed for that is to ask Jesus into your heart to be your personal Savior.

This lack of attention to baptism made me and my husband very sad.

And even more sad, it seemed like communion (remember, it’s not a sacrament in the Evangelical churches) was offered less and less. In our church, communion services were held 4 times a year, and this was during a Sunday evening service (which was sparsely attended).

Since communion and baptism were just “symbols,” I can understand why they were being done less and less.

However, what we started wondering is whether eventually, “marriage” would also be done only a few times a year. After all, as long as you’re tossing the old symbolic traditions, why not toss out marriage, too?

OTOH, I just received a newsletter from an Evangelical group that I still communicate with, and they just finished holding a “Confession” in which Christians were encouraged to confess their sins and seek the Lord’s forgiveness. It sounds like the Confessions were done in private with just a pastor or a fellow believer. But still, it’s encouraging to read about an Evangelical group that’s trying to restore the traditions rather than toss them!

I guess what I’m trying to say (rambling-style) is that you really can’t ever make any generalizations about Protestant churches and denominations, especially Evangelical denominations. It just depends on who the pastor is and who the leaders of the denomination are.

Thanks, Cat. I’ve read your posts on here before, and I always appreciate your insight.

Just an FYI - I’m a convert from an evangelical southern baptist church, and in this particular church baptism is required in order to join (unless one is physically unable to go through the process). But I’ve always found it peculiar to hold baptism in such high esteem, and yet insist it’s not required for salvation, while insisting that it be of a certain form (immersion), etc.

 

[stewstew03]

No. The necessary elements are the Holy Spirit, the Word of Christ, faith, and repentance.

Right; so from a protestant perspective one can be baptized by writing a letter, or creating a sign that says “I’m a born-again believer in Jesus Christ.”

Galatians 3:26-27: “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”

Amen. Baptism = clothed in the righteousness of Christ

Colossians 2:11-12: “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

Amen. Baptism = old “self” dies so that we might walk with Him

Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”

Amen. Baptism = forgiveness of sins, receive the Holy Spirit

Matthew 28:19-20: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

Amen. Baptism = valid with Trinitarian form

Matthew 3:15: “it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”

Amen. Baptism = required

These verses support the view that baptism is required for salvation.

What I’m looking for is the scripture that supports what you wrote earlier. Namely, that Christ commanded this sacrament because baptism is a symbol that: (1) publicly identifies us as Christians, (2) gives us an opportunity to renew our commitment to Christ, etc., and (3) if we get baptized others might see it and also want to get baptized.

:bible1:

 

[ltwin]

Right; so from a protestant perspective one can be baptized by writing a letter, or creating a sign that says “I’m a born-again believer in Jesus Christ.”

Wait a minute. I think there has been some sort of mis-communication. When you asked, “But is water a necessary element from your perspective?” I thought you were speaking of salvation. Salvation has nothing to do with water. If we’re talking about water baptism, then water is obviously a necessary element.

Also, you need to be careful saying “protestant perspective.” Not all Protestants are evangelicals.

Amen. Baptism = clothed in the righteousness of Christ

Through faith we become children of God, and in baptism, we “clothe” ourselves “with Christ.” Therefore, we identify with Christ and his righteousness.

Amen. Baptism = old “self” dies so that we might walk with Him

Yes, when someone dies it is fitting to bury the body. When we are born again and made new by the Holy Spirit, it is fitting that we bury the old man in baptism. This in part explains how baptism is a sealing of the spiritual commitment. Those who fail to be baptized miss this important step in solidifying their identification with and appropriation of the death and resurrection of Christ.

Amen. Baptism = forgiveness of sins, receive the Holy Spirit

The order is clear. Repentance first. Baptism second. The turning from sin is what is important. The baptism seals the spiritual commitment. It is appropriate before being baptized that we examine our consciences and repent of sin that we may have fallen into since our conversion.

Amen. Baptism = valid with Trinitarian form

Amen. Baptism = required

These verses support the view that baptism is required for salvation.

Well, we know that baptism is part of obedience, and we know that obedience to Christ is necessary. In that sense, baptism is part of obeying Christ. Christ said to baptize, so we baptize. No questions asked. We obey in faith. The Church baptizes, and the believer submits to baptism in faith. It is about obedience.

However, this is very different from saying that baptism affects some eternal ontological change to the soul. It is the grace and power of God through the agency of the Holy Spirit and the Word via faith that changes the soul.

What I’m looking for is the scripture that supports what you wrote earlier. Namely, that Christ commanded this sacrament because baptism is a symbol that: (1) publicly identifies us as Christians, (2) gives us an opportunity to renew our commitment to Christ, etc., and (3) if we get baptized others might see it and also want to get baptized.

All of the Scriptures I cited support that in baptism we are identified with Christ, confirming and renewing our commitment to him, examining our consciences and repenting of sin, and fulfilling all righteousness in obedience.

 

[Georgia]

“But is water a necessary element from your perspective?” No, not in my former independent Baptist church. The belief was that the person was saved was going to Heaven the moment the Sinner’s Prayer was completed. Baptism was not necessary.

We had a strong disagreement with a similar church down the road when it took a position that baptism was required for salvation. To us, it was a mere symbol and something that one did in obedience to Biblical commands. There was no thought of grace being conferred.

It had to be done with immersion in a baptismal pool, nothing else was recognized. Now that I have read the earlier postings, I too am a little puzzled that we required a strict form to something we considered only a symbol.

This seems to touch on another issue raised in this discussion, the authority of pastors in some churches. If you are talking about non-affiliated churches, the doctrinal authority can be considerable.

 

[aidanbradypop]

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?

1. 
   I was once a Southern Baptist. Baptism was merely a outwardly expression of an inward salvation. Make sense? It is called the “believer’s baptism” and it is usually completed when one joins a Church or becomes saved and born again. They are born again by accepting Christ and not by their baptism. The Baptist faith has sooooo many different views that it is hard to pin one down to any of the sects, but as for Southern Baptist, one can be “saved” without ever being baptized.

 

[stewstew03]

I was once a Southern Baptist. Baptism was merely a outwardly expression of an inward salvation. Make sense? It is called the “believer’s baptism” and it is usually completed when one joins a Church or becomes saved and born again. They are born again by accepting Christ and not by their baptism. The Baptist faith has sooooo many different views that it is hard to pin one down to any of the sects, but as for Southern Baptist, one can be “saved” without ever being baptized.

I was once a southern baptist as well.

It’s an interesting doctrine, this “believer’s baptism.” Baptism is symbolic, and not required for salvation, and yet one must be immersed in water, otherwise it’s invalid.

Baptism isn’t required for salvation, and yet, if one refuses to be baptized, his or her salvation would be called into question. Baptists will say “works” play no part in our salvation, and yet “believer’s baptism” requires a “work” (namely, action on the part of the believer) in order for the baptism to be valid. Southern Baptists (and others) would deny the work of the cross in the case of infant baptism.

Are there any other examples in scripture where Jesus commands believers to perform an act in vain? That is, an act that has no consequence for the soul?

 

[aidanbradypop]

I was once a southern baptist as well.

It’s an interesting doctrine, this “believer’s baptism.” Baptism is symbolic, and not required for salvation, and yet one must be immersed in water, otherwise it’s invalid.

Baptism isn’t required for salvation, and yet, if one refuses to be baptized, his or her salvation would be called into question. Baptists will say “works” play no part in our salvation, and yet “believer’s baptism” requires a “work” (namely, action on the part of the believer) in order for the baptism to be valid. Southern Baptists (and others) would deny the work of the cross in the case of infant baptism.

Are there any other examples in scripture where Jesus commands believers to perform an act in vain? That is, an act that has no consequence for the soul?

Wonderful information on the Sacarment of Baptism. scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

Believers Baptism is Scriptual in a sense that when someone comes into the Church who is not baptized, then they partake in the believer’s baptism. If one simply stops there, one will miss the whole doctrine on Baptism. Infant baptism is clearly stated in Scripture.

 

[stewstew03]

Wait a minute. I think there has been some sort of mis-communication. When you asked, “But is water a necessary element from your perspective?” I thought you were speaking of salvation. Salvation has nothing to do with water. If we’re talking about water baptism, then water is obviously a necessary element.

Also, you need to be careful saying “protestant perspective.” Not all Protestants are evangelicals.

Through faith we become children of God, and in baptism, we “clothe” ourselves “with Christ.” Therefore, we identify with Christ and his righteousness.

Yes, when someone dies it is fitting to bury the body. When we are born again and made new by the Holy Spirit, it is fitting that we bury the old man in baptism. This in part explains how baptism is a sealing of the spiritual commitment. Those who fail to be baptized miss this important step in solidifying their identification with and appropriation of the death and resurrection of Christ.

The order is clear. Repentance first. Baptism second. The turning from sin is what is important. The baptism seals the spiritual commitment. It is appropriate before being baptized that we examine our consciences and repent of sin that we may have fallen into since our conversion.

Well, we know that baptism is part of obedience, and we know that obedience to Christ is necessary. In that sense, baptism is part of obeying Christ. Christ said to baptize, so we baptize. No questions asked. We obey in faith. The Church baptizes, and the believer submits to baptism in faith. It is about obedience.

However, this is very different from saying that baptism affects some eternal ontological change to the soul. It is the grace and power of God through the agency of the Holy Spirit and the Word via faith that changes the soul.

All of the Scriptures I cited support that in baptism we are identified with Christ, confirming and renewing our commitment to him, examining our consciences and repenting of sin, and fulfilling all righteousness in obedience.

I think we can agree on most of this. But I still don’t see any scriptural evidence for your point that baptism is a symbolic expression with the purpose of: (1) publicly identifying us as Christians, (2) giving us “another opportunity” to commit to Christ, or (3) letting others see it so that they might convert.

Can you provide scriptural evidence that baptism is a symbolic act that is completed for the purpose of outward expression, or as an opportunity to commit to Christ?

:bible1: