Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

[aidanbradypop]

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:

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

 

[jrtrent]

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.

In the Baptist churches I’ve attended, refusing to be Baptized would be evidence that the person was not saved, for they are failing to carry out a rather simple command from their Lord. I know there is also the whole “Lordship salvation” debate, and I don’t know where Southern Baptists currently lie on this topic, but for many Baptists of a reformed nature, absence of sanctification indicates an absence of justification.

. . . all genuine believers are being sanctified–conformed gradually to the image of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 8:29). Those who remain unchanged and in unbroken bondage to sin have no true knowledge of Christ (1 John 3:6). gty.org/resources/articles/2263

Martin Luther is quoted as saying, "“Faith alone justifies, but not the faith that is alone.” “Works are not taken into consideration when the question respects justification. But true faith will no more fail to produce them than the sun can cease to give light.” equip.org/articles/understanding-the-lordship-salvation-controversy/

I can’t imagine any believing Christian refusing to participate in Baptism or the Lord’s Supper, or refusing to attend church (thereby forsaking the assembling of themselves together with other Christians), or suggesting that they have no duty to struggle against sin or to love their neighbor. Is Baptism necessary for salvation? We have at least one Biblical example that it isn’t, but refusing to be Baptized indicates that the faith that justifies is absent.

 

[stewstew03]

“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.

Thanks Georgia.

This is not so much a question for you, but for your former church: If baptism is something we do in obedience to God’s command, how can it be a mere symbol? Are there any other commandments from God that we can ignore as empty rhetoric?

 

[aidanbradypop]

In the Baptist churches I’ve attended, refusing to be Baptized would be evidence that the person was not saved, for they are failing to carry out a rather simple command from their Lord. I know there is also the whole “Lordship salvation” debate, and I don’t know where Southern Baptists currently lie on this topic, but for many Baptists of a reformed nature, absence of sanctification indicates an absence of justification.

. . . all genuine believers are being sanctified–conformed gradually to the image of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 8:29). Those who remain unchanged and in unbroken bondage to sin have no true knowledge of Christ (1 John 3:6). gty.org/resources/articles/2263

Martin Luther is quoted as saying, "“Faith alone justifies, but not the faith that is alone.” “Works are not taken into consideration when the ques*tion respects justification. But true faith will no more fail to produce them than the sun can cease to give light.” equip.org/articles/understanding-the-lordship-salvation-controversy/

I can’t imagine any believing Christian refusing to participate in Baptism or the Lord’s Supper, or refusing to attend church (thereby forsaking the assembling of themselves together with other Christians), or suggesting that they have no duty to struggle against sin or to love their neighbor. Is Baptism necessary for salvation? We have at least one Biblical example that it isn’t, but refusing to be Baptized indicates that the faith that justifies is absent.

Southern Baptist are of the Free Grace Theology. They accept Christ and their baptism is symbolic gesture of their coming into the Christian faith. As Catholics, we believe that we are born again from our baptism. They believe they are born again from their being saved at the altar call. Ouakers do not believe in baptism. Southern Baptist as a whole are pretty much anti Reformed Theology. There are some pastors who are open to some teachings but not as a whole.

Just like GKC always points out, there are many different beliefs under the “Baptist” name. A lady I know was baptized Catholic as an infant. She was not really raised in the Church. She attended a Lutheran Church for awhile and then, along with her husband, converted to Evangelical Baptist (the mega church type). She was baptized again by her husband in a public pool. The congregation she attended knew she was already baptized, but to them, it was just a symbolic expression of her being apart of their congregation.

 

[jrtrent]

A lady I know was baptized Catholic as an infant. She was not really raised in the Church. She attended a Lutheran Church for awhile and then, along with her husband, converted to Evangelical Baptist (the mega church type). She was baptized again by her husband in a public pool. The congregation she attended knew she was already baptized, but to them, it was just a symbolic expression of her being apart of their congregation.

Interesting. The Baptists I know would have re-Baptized her, too, not as an expression of joining their congregation, but because her previous Baptism was invalid–she might not have been immersed as an infant in a Catholic church, and for sure it would not have been a “believer’s” Baptism. And unless her husband was called to be the minister of her church, many Baptists would not recognize her current Baptism as valid, either.

 

[stewstew03]

In the Baptist churches I’ve attended, refusing to be Baptized would be evidence that the person was not saved, for they are failing to carry out a rather simple command from their Lord. I know there is also the whole “Lordship salvation” debate, and I don’t know where Southern Baptists currently lie on this topic, but for many Baptists of a reformed nature, absence of sanctification indicates an absence of justification.

. . . all genuine believers are being sanctified–conformed gradually to the image of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 8:29). Those who remain unchanged and in unbroken bondage to sin have no true knowledge of Christ (1 John 3:6). gty.org/resources/articles/2263

Martin Luther is quoted as saying, "“Faith alone justifies, but not the faith that is alone.” “Works are not taken into consideration when the question respects justification. But true faith will no more fail to produce them than the sun can cease to give light.” equip.org/articles/understanding-the-lordship-salvation-controversy/

I can’t imagine any believing Christian refusing to participate in Baptism or the Lord’s Supper, or refusing to attend church (thereby forsaking the assembling of themselves together with other Christians), or suggesting that they have no duty to struggle against sin or to love their neighbor. Is Baptism necessary for salvation? We have at least one Biblical example that it isn’t, but refusing to be Baptized indicates that the faith that justifies is absent.

You mean, Baptists have a way of knowing who is sanctified and who is not…??

It appears that baptism is some sort of measuring stick. Baptism in and of itself has no soterial effect, but it is evidence of one’s salvation.

 

[stewstew03]

Interesting. The Baptists I know would have re-Baptized her, too, not as an expression of joining their congregation, but because her previous Baptism was invalid–she might not have been immersed as an infant in a Catholic church, and for sure it would not have been a “believer’s” Baptism. And unless her husband was called to be the minister of her church, many Baptists would not recognize her current Baptism as valid, either.

But… why re-baptize? She already fulfilled the command. Where is the scriptural evidence for re-baptizing?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Interesting. The Baptists I know would have re-Baptized her, too, not as an expression of joining their congregation, but because her previous Baptism was invalid–she might not have been immersed as an infant in a Catholic church, and for sure it would not have been a “believer’s” Baptism. And unless her husband was called to be the minister of her church, many Baptists would not recognize her current Baptism as valid, either.

Here is the Southern Baptist stance on Baptism if you are interested.
sbc.net/knowjesus/baptism.asp

The majority of Christianity does not immerse. From Catholics to Anglicans to Lutherans to Orthodox. I believe even some Methodist do not.

 

[jrtrent]

Here is the Southern Baptist stance on Baptism if you are interested.
sbc.net/knowjesus/baptism.asp

Thanks, that was an interesting read and in line with what I’ve read by other Baptist organizations. I found an interesting article on the subject by a Southern Baptist. Here is the conclusion:

“The ordinance of baptism is a symbol of genuine conversion for those who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is not a sacrament that provides saving efficacy to infants or unbelievers. When we practice scriptural baptism, it is a joyous celebration of our Lord’s resurrection and the believer’s new life in Christ. Only immersion of the new believer portrays this accurately. With the authority for baptism residing in the local New Testament church, only a proper administrator, a person authorized by the congregation itself, should perform baptism.” sbclife.net/Articles/2012/03/sla8.asp

 

[aidanbradypop]

Thanks, that was an interesting read and in line with what I’ve read by other Baptist organizations. I found an interesting article on the subject by a Southern Baptist. Here is the conclusion:

“The ordinance of baptism is a symbol of genuine conversion for those who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is not a sacrament that provides saving efficacy to infants or unbelievers. When we practice scriptural baptism, it is a joyous celebration of our Lord’s resurrection and the believer’s new life in Christ. Only immersion of the new believer portrays this accurately. With the authority for baptism residing in the local New Testament church, only a proper administrator, a person authorized by the congregation itself, should perform baptism.” sbclife.net/Articles/2012/03/sla8.asp

With that, my friend baptism for the second time would not be valid in the eyes of the SBC. I have known some Baptist that believe the water is not something that is required. I cannot remember what sect they belonged to…maybe freewill independent baptist…but they were more of the belief that the Blood of Christ is what baptized us and accepting his death and resurrection was all that was needed.

So many different beliefs out there.

 

[stewstew03]

Here is the Southern Baptist stance on Baptism if you are interested.
sbc.net/knowjesus/baptism.asp

The majority of Christianity does not immerse. From Catholics to Anglicans to Lutherans to Orthodox. I believe even some Methodist do not.

Thanks for the link.

“Baptism is like a wedding ring - it’s the outward symbol of the commitment you make in your heart.”

Interesting that they compare baptism to a wedding ring, as opposed to a wedding ceremony. Of course, if they compared it to the wedding ceremony, they’d be forced to recognize its sacramental value. And it raises an interesting point - if it’s like an outward symbol, the form becomes immaterial. One can simply wear a necklace that says - “I’m a born-again believer in Jesus Christ” or post a sign outside their home, etc.

“It is a membership requirement that every member must have been baptized the way Jesus demonstrated, even though some of us were “confirmed” as children.”

Requirement? Must be baptized the way Jesus demonstrated? This smacks of legalism, except without the benefit of God’s grace.

 

[aidanbradypop]

churchfathers.org/category/sacraments/infant-baptism/

Great information on Baptism…If you click the Sacraments on the left side, much more can be seen.

 

[Monergistic]

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.

I don’t have much experience with Catholicism, but I did attend a Catholic funeral not long ago and I would like to point out something that I saw in the liturgical paperwork.

Within that paperwork were a few words making it abundantly clear that while the rites and observances of a Catholic funeral are of great importance and held in high esteem, they do not have any effect on the soul of the deceased. I was given a piece of paper, which I read, and it was very clear about this.

However, at the funeral for the mother-in-law of a friend, it did not seem right or appropriate to ask questions like “Why do you even do this if it has absolutely no effect on her soul.”

So a rite of some sort has no effect on a person’s soul- so what. That means you shouldn’t do it? That means something like a Protestant baptism (or a Catholic funeral) is “merely,” “only,” “lacking,” or “deficient”?

I decided not to ask any of those questions at the funeral. But I did ask myself if it was really so puzzling for people to participate in a religious rite with reverence and with the understanding that it is meaningful and important even without some change being made to someone’s soul, and I answered that question. No, a Catholic funeral is not really all that puzzling. I can understand it- I even have a frame of reference for how that is and what it’s like.

 

[rinnie]

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

From what I am told only if the person is dying and cannot get to the Church anotherwards extreme measures. And it does not have to be an infant.

So to a degree, what the poster said is true, any baptised adult can baptise another. But again according to the teaching of the Church only in extreme situations.

 

[rinnie]

I don’t have much experience with Catholicism, but I did attend a Catholic funeral not long ago and I would like to point out something that I saw in the liturgical paperwork.

Within that paperwork were a few words making it abundantly clear that while the rites and observances of a Catholic funeral are of great importance and held in high esteem, they do not have any effect on the soul of the deceased. I was given a piece of paper, which I read, and it was very clear about this.

However, at the funeral for the mother-in-law of a friend, it did not seem right or appropriate to ask questions like “Why do you even do this if it has absolutely no effect on her soul.”

So a rite of some sort has no effect on a person’s soul- so what. That means you shouldn’t do it? That means something like a Protestant baptism (or a Catholic funeral) is “merely,” “only,” “lacking,” or “deficient”?

I decided not to ask any of those questions at the funeral. But I did ask myself if it was really so puzzling for people to participate in a religious rite with reverence and with the understanding that it is meaningful and important even without some change being made to someone’s soul, and I answered that question. No, a Catholic funeral is not really all that puzzling. I can understand it- I even have a frame of reference for how that is and what it’s like.

I think you need to read the paper again, Or you were given a false paper. The funeral is part of the Catholic Mass where prayers are said for the person who died and the prayers are to help the person if they were to go to purgatory to lesson their time.

No judgement is made at the funeral rather the person was awarded into heaven or not. How could the Priest or Anyone possibly know the choice made by God.

So you need to get you facts straight, I am afraid.

If you were to say if the person died in a state of mortal sin and was deemed to hell by God and God alone, then the prayers would not be accepted, then okay, I will agree with that.

But could you please quote the pamplet that states the mass has absolutely no help for the person who died?

Again could you state how anyone could know what the judgement of God was? Because according to the RCC only God grants that judgement not the Church, Priest, etc.

 

[stewstew03]

From what I am told only if the person is dying and cannot get to the Church anotherwards extreme measures. And it does not have to be an infant.

So to a degree, what the poster said is true, any baptised adult can baptise another. But again according to the teaching of the Church only in extreme situations.

Yes - I meant, “in which protestant” church…

 

[FabiusMaximus]

But… why re-baptize? She already fulfilled the command. Where is the scriptural evidence for re-baptizing?

You have to understand that an Evangelical considers baptism to be only valid when a person elects to do it by their own free will. Baptism, because it is not considered to have regenerative properties, can only make sense when a person willingly does it, which an infant cannot do. An infant cannot make a profession of faith, and therefore, that baptism is not strictly valid.

However, if an adult converts to Catholicism, is baptized, and then switches to Evangelicalism, then that baptism might be considered valid, though that would depend on the individual pastor.

I don’t know many people who converted to Catholicism as an adult and then converted again to Evangelical Christianity.

 

[Georgia]

Some have discussed multiple baptisms. That was not unusual in my former independent Baptist church. If a person were to decide that he was “not right with the Lord” at the time of any number of prior baptisms, there would be another baptism upon request.

Baptisms at any church other that one of the same faith and practice would not be recognized and a potential church member would have to be baptized again. For example, if a candidate for membership in our church came to us from something as close as a Freewill Baptist church or from a Primitive Baptist church, that candidate would not be a full member of the church until our baptism took place.

Infant baptisms were not recognized. Infants were taken to the front of the church for a prayer of dedication, but baptism was reserved for those who made a statement of having been saved. Again, if the person never made it to the baptistry, the belief was that the soul would go straight to Heaven because of having made a decision for the Lord. Baptism was a statement of having accepted Christ as a personal savior and of obeying the command to be baptized.

 

[ltwin]

You mean, Baptists have a way of knowing who is sanctified and who is not…??

He clearly did not say that. He said that absence of sanctification indicates absence of justification. He stated a principle; he did not state that anyone had “a way of knowing”. However, I think we all agree that if someone claims to be a disciple of Christ but cannot follow Christ’s simple command to be baptized then they are not a very good disciple of Christ.

It appears that baptism is some sort of measuring stick. Baptism in and of itself has no soterial effect, but it is evidence of one’s salvation.

No, it isn’t evidence of salvation. If that were the case, all Catholics would be saints from birth.

Anyone can be dumped in a pool and call themselves baptized. Anyone can call themselves a Christian. That doesn’t mean that all have been born again and made new by the Holy Spirit.

 

[ltwin]

But… why re-baptize? She already fulfilled the command. Where is the scriptural evidence for re-baptizing?

It isn’t re-baptizing if you think the other “baptisms” were invalid. It would be like the Catholic Church saying non-Trinitiarian “baptism” is not baptism at all. Are Catholic’s “re-baptizing” or are they just deciding that a “baptism” never occurred at all?