Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

[aidanbradypop]

It is not hard to understand, because they believe that the believer had to make the decision to be baptized. By immersion it is not a secret, as all have the possibility see you as if you fell in a river. It is like saying I don’t understand why I should face Mecca to pray or not eat a cow

I can understand believer’s baptism. I was once Protestant, but I also believe that baptism is not merely an outward expression of an inward salvation. In Scripture we read how entire families were baptized. That kind of goes against the theology of only baptizing once someone believes. Right?

 

[4Squarebaby]

I can understand believer’s baptism. I was once Protestant, but I also believe that baptism is not merely an outward expression of an inward salvation. In Scripture we read how entire families were baptized. That kind of goes against the theology of only baptizing once someone believes. Right?

Correct but saying I don’t understand, when it is I don’t agree is the equivalent of saying what is wrong with those people and people of different communities have been doing that to each other for centuries.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Correct but saying I don’t understand, when it is I don’t agree is the equivalent of saying what is wrong with those people and people of different communities have been doing that to each other for centuries.

He stated that he did not understand why

 

[joemf]

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 would agree it is indeed a public profession/witness of identifying with Christ, as a picture of His death,burial and resurrection. And while it does not have any effect on my salvation…it DOES have much to say to others about my desire to obey Christ at this new point in my life. It is a living witness to be obedient! As for the practicality of a baptismal pool?? Pretty self evident to me, growing up in a country church as I did. It is l00% more practical for old people,disabled, etc. to enjoy a baptism without the discomforts of inclement weather, people falling and getting hurt on a muddy river bank,etc. I was baptized in a river . I think there’s much to be said for an old fashioned mode such as that. And no, there’s no NT rules and regs for ‘where’ one should be baptized. Just as there’s no NT rules and regs that choirs should wear robes when they sing. It’s merely a matter of a particular church polity/practice… Plus most protestant churches that I’m familiar with do allow parents etc. to participate in baptisms. True, ministers of the Gospel usually oversee this process, but then, since when do we think sheep lead themselves, and not the overseer/shepherd/pastor of the flock?

 

[stewstew03]

So- do you equate my opinion with something that carries authoritative weight? I don’t mind at all if you want to say something to me, so please go right ahead.

Please don’t derail the thread. There are a few issues on the table, and one in particular is this notion of symbolism vis-a-vis God’s commands. Are there any other commandments from God that are considered symbolic?

:bible1:

 

[aidanbradypop]

I would agree it is indeed a public profession/witness of identifying with Christ, as a picture of His death,burial and resurrection. And while it does not have any effect on my salvation…it DOES have much to say to others about my desire to obey Christ at this new point in my life. It is a living witness to be obedient! As for the practicality of a baptismal pool?? Pretty self evident to me, growing up in a country church as I did. It is l00% more practical for old people,disabled, etc. to enjoy a baptism without the discomforts of inclement weather, people falling and getting hurt on a muddy river bank,etc. I was baptized in a river . I think there’s much to be said for an old fashioned mode such as that. And no, there’s no NT rules and regs for ‘where’ one should be baptized. Just as there’s no NT rules and regs that choirs should wear robes when they sing. It’s merely a matter of a particular church polity/practice… Plus most protestant churches that I’m familiar with do allow parents etc. to participate in baptisms.

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (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). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

 

[stewstew03]

The point is that the argument “symbols are useless so why even do it if you think its a symbol?” is a stupid argument, since even Catholics engage in symbolic behavior.

Which of the sacraments are merely symbolic?

 

[stewstew03]

I’m not disagreeing with the baptismal formula. However, I’m pointing out to the OP that Baptists and others who “re-baptize” adults who had infant baptism and what not do not see it as “re-baptizing” since to them infant baptism is not valid.

But if it’s symbolic, how can it be invalidated? That’s what I don’t understand.

 

[stewstew03]

I think you know why, and you stated it very well. Your reminder of our need to engage in more civil discourse has made the thread a little brighter. Thanks.

I don’t think there’s been a lack of civility at all. From my perspective, I am making a genuine attempt to understand the contradictions:

1. 
   *]Baptism is a command from Jesus, and yet it’s symbolic;
   *]Baptism is symbolic, and yet it requires a certain form.
   
   I’m honestly having difficulty reconciling these premises.

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t think you’ve presented an accurate distillation of the OP’s argument.

Rather, I think, stew’s argument can be condensed to: if baptism is symbolic, why all the criteria?

Why only by immersion? Why do baptism-is-symbolic-only believers start their own churches because they disagree so vehemently on one particular aspect of this symbolic-only practice?

If it is symbolic-only, then why name your congregation after it? That would be like, borrowing from the analogy of the SBC apologist website, my stating, not that I am married, but that I am a Ringer. I have a wedding ring that symbolizes my marriage and I want to name my relationship with my husband, not as marriage, but as a Ringer. If the important part is the marriage, and not the ring, why identify oneself by the ring?

Why?

EXACTLY!

 

[stewstew03]

It is not hard to understand, because they believe that the believer had to make the decision to be baptized. …

Why does a symbolic gesture take precedent over the decision to believe in Christ?

What would happen under this scenario:

1. 
   *]Catholic parents baptize their infant daughter;
   *]Infant is dipped/immersed in the baptismal font at the Church with the Trinitarian formula;
   *]Catholic parents try to raise their daughter as a strong Christian;
   *]Daughter falls away in high school/college;
   *]Fast forward…
   *]Daughter meets Pentecostal man, falls in love, decides to get married;
   *]Daughter makes a decision to “re-dedicate” her life to Christ, and becomes a born-again Christian in the Pentecostal tradition;
   *]Wants to join Pentecostal church…
   
   Under this scenario, why is it required that she be re-baptized? Which of the criteria is she missing?
   
   1. 
      *]She has been baptized by a Christian Church using the Trinitarian formula
      *]She was immersed
      *]Meets Christ’s commandment
      *]Her baptism “symbolized” Christ’s burial/resurrection
      *]As an adult, she has publicly confessed her commitment to Christ
      
      You might say that “belief” is missing, but baptism doesn’t make you a believer, right? And, as I said, she has already publicly confessed her belief. In fact, under this scenario, she has proclaimed to the congregation: “I am a baptized, born-again Christian!”
      
      So - why must she be RE-baptized?

 

[stewstew03]

I would agree it is indeed a public profession/witness of identifying with Christ, as a picture of His death,burial and resurrection. And while it does not have any effect on my salvation…it DOES have much to say to others about my desire to obey Christ at this new point in my life. It is a living witness to be obedient!
…

Hi Joe - welcome to the discussion. Maybe you can provide some answers… Where in the bible does it say that baptism, as a command from God, is to be done as a public display of one’s faith?

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t know why, but this thread saddens me…

IMHO , we shouldn’t make light or question the authenticity of anyone’s baptism done in good faith and making a declaration of their belief in one God, Christ as our savior, the Holy Spirit and solidarity of the Trinity. In regards to this thread, we all share the belief in Christ as our savior and the Trinity. Why belittle one another’s practices? How are as we as Catholics to evangelize and bring others to what we know and love if we go about it in a manner that is placing the other party automatically on the defensive???

Frankly, Bix - I find it offensive that a command from Jesus is “belittled” as merely a public gesture of one’s faith. And I find it offensive that Catholics who convert to protestantism have to be “re-baptized.”

However, if you find any of my posts (or others) offensive, feel free to report them to the moderator. I certainly have not intended any disrespect in my attempt to understand how a commandment from God can be symbolic.

Peace be with you!

:bible1:

 

[stewstew03]

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (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). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

Amen.

 

[adf417]

1. 
   *]Catholic parents baptize their infant daughter;
   *]Infant is dipped/immersed in the baptismal font at the Church with the Trinitarian formula;
   *]Catholic parents try to raise their daughter as a strong Christian;
   *]Daughter falls away in high school/college;
   *]Fast forward…
   *]Daughter meets Pentecostal man, falls in love, decides to get married;
   *]Daughter makes a decision to “re-dedicate” her life to Christ, and becomes a born-again Christian in the Pentecostal tradition;
   *]Wants to join Pentecostal church…

1. 
   Fast forward a few years after she “learns more about her faith” and decides to get re-re-baptized…:hypno:
   
   This is what a Baptist friend just told me a couple weeks ago. He “has grown so much and learned so much” that he feels it necessary to be re-baptized making it his 3rd baptism.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Fast forward a few years after she “learns more about her faith” and decides to get re-re-baptized…:hypno:

This is what a Baptist friend just told me a couple weeks ago. He “has grown so much and learned so much” that he feels it necessary to be re-baptized making it his 3rd baptism.

Are the second and third in vain and simply for his own peace of mind?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I don’t know why, but this thread saddens me…

IMHO , we shouldn’t make light or question the authenticity of anyone’s baptism done in good faith and making a declaration of their belief in one God, Christ as our savior, the Holy Spirit and solidarity of the Trinity. In regards to this thread, we all share the belief in Christ as our savior and the Trinity. Why belittle one another’s practices? How are as we as Catholics to evangelize and bring others to what we know and love if we go about it in a manner that is placing the other party automatically on the defensive???

Frankly, I don’t understand or believe in the need or reason for multiple baptisms if the original is done in accordance with the Trinity and the proper heart. Also, I understand the Catholic Church accepts these baptisms as proper and valid when one converts to Catholicism.

They are not merely symbolic and worthless and to say so is insulting as well as hurtful to many good Christians and most likely to God…

Also, the statements regarding prayers and incense for those passed away is equally misunderstood and many Catholics as well as non Catholics have read and understand why this is done and is important for those who have passed away… Why make folly of this?

I understand this is not the evangelization forum, but we are always representing our Lord and beliefs no matter where we are or post and should be bringing others closer to him.

I also understand I will receive much flack for these statements as I have in the past and will refrain from posting further in order to not receive multiple negative emails and posts regarding my lack of being a proper Catholic… It was over a year before I posted on Catholic Answers again after the nasty comments I received the last time. Please, understand my opinions and thoughts are not meant to insult others of any religion and do not reflect a lack of my genuine love of the Church. However, my first love is God.

God Bless~

BiC, I understand your sentiment.

Praise be to God, He is bringing my whole family to the Catholic Faith. My wife and 3 step children come from a Protestant background. My 1 biological son is coming back to the Faith as well because I finally stopped my rebellion and I am coming to the Faith as well.

With the exception of my oldest Stepson, my wife and my 2 other step children have not been properly baptized. As such the Church will use the Baptismal formula to bring them into the Faith.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church determined the need for baptism. Not me.

Christ established a way to do things, it is our job to follow and teach others of those things — in charity of course. But nonetheless, it must be done.

Others have their own way of understanding what Christ said, regardless I must approach them and share what has been given to me. Because they are my brothers in Christ. For example, in this same thread Publisher explained his belief. In exchange, I presented the teaching of the Church. Publisher expressed his comfort in the relationship he has with Christ. All I can do now is but pray for him and that Christ’s mercy is with him (and me of course ). However, if Publisher posts that we (Catholics) are wrong about our interpretation of Sacred Scriptures and/or Sacred Tradition, it is also my responsibility to defend it. In charity of course.

Peace,

Jose

 

[jrtrent]

I don’t think there’s been a lack of civility at all. From my perspective, I am making a genuine attempt to understand the contradictions:

1. 
   *]Baptism is a command from Jesus, and yet it’s symbolic;
   *]Baptism is symbolic, and yet it requires a certain form.
   
   I’m honestly having difficulty reconciling these premises.

1. I find it offensive that a command from Jesus is “belittled” as merely a public gesture of one’s faith.

   From a Baptist perspective, yes, baptism was ordained by Jesus; yes, it is an act of obedience that is an outward expression of one’s inward experience of faith in Jesus Christ; and yes, there is a proper form that is followed. I don’t see any contradictions in that that need reconciling. It might help if you simply tell us what you believe about baptism that is causing this difficulty for you, and what it is about the Baptist understanding of this ordinance that you find so offensive.

 

[pablope]

I would agree it is indeed a public profession/witness of identifying with Christ, as a picture of His death,burial and resurrection. And while it does not have any effect on my salvation…

Wait a minute…1 Peter 3:21says…
21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for[a] a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

it DOES have much to say to others about my desire to obey Christ at this new point in my life. It is a living witness to be obedient!

 

[andrewstx]

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:

Itwin I was sent to a Nazarene church from before I can remember until I was 15 years old. It seems to me that what you can read in the Nazarene Manual and what actually goes on in Nazarene churches are very different things.

As long as I was there I never saw a baptism of any age, by any format it seems that “being saved” is the main emphasis for that denomination.

I did remember once seeing a child dedicated, but never baptized.