Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

[stewstew03]

From a Baptist perspective, yes, baptism was ordained by Jesus; yes, it 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.

If it is an act of obedience, what is the consequence for disobedience?

 

[stewstew03]

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.

As for my beliefs - you may refer to the Catechism.

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”

I also like what Martin Luther said about baptism:

“Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted.”

:bible1:

 

[ltwin]

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?

Because something is either an actual baptism or it is not.

Why only by immersion?

Because they believe that that is how Jesus was baptized, and that it actually symbolizes what happens–burial and rising with Christ. It is a desire to be as close to the biblical examples.

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?

Baptists as Christians are not exclusively focused on baptism. Baptists hold to the authority of the Bible, the independence of local congregations, the necessity of a conversion experience and a believer’s baptism by immersion, and evangelism and missionary outreach.

Now, you could say that today the only sort of distinctive trait are ones related to baptism, but you’d be discounting the fact that Baptists originated in the 1600s. All of this stuff in 1600s England would have been really distinctive.

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?

The original Baptists were English Separatists who practiced believer’s baptism. Just as in the case of the Anabaptists (who were called that by their enemies at first), I don’t think we can just claim that the first Baptists would have chose that label for themselves. It could have been just what they were called and the label stuck.

As late as the 18th century, some Baptists were still describing themselves as, “the Christians commonly—though falsely—called Anabaptists.”

 

[ltwin]

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.

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.

 

[stewstew03]

Because something is either an actual baptism or it is not.

Because they believe that that is how Jesus was baptized, and that it actually symbolizes what happens–burial and rising with Christ. It is a desire to be as close to the biblical examples.

Baptists as Christians are not exclusively focused on baptism. Baptists hold to the authority of the Bible, the independence of local congregations, the necessity of a conversion experience and a believer’s baptism by immersion, and evangelism and missionary outreach.

Now, you could say that today the only sort of distinctive trait are ones related to baptism, but you’d be discounting the fact that Baptists originated in the 1600s. All of this stuff in 1600s England would have been really distinctive.

The original Baptists were English Separatists who practiced believer’s baptism. Just as in the case of the Anabaptists (who were called that by their enemies at first), I don’t think we can just claim that the first Baptists would have chose that label for themselves. It could have been just what they were called and the label stuck.

As late as the 18th century, some Baptists were still describing themselves as, “the Christians commonly—though falsely—called Anabaptists.”

Hi Itwin, I appreciate you engaging in the discussion, but there are still a few outstanding items; namely, the scriptural evidence.

Can you provide scriptural evidence that baptism is a symbolic act that is completed for the purpose of outward expression?

Thanks!

 

[ltwin]

Which of the sacraments are merely symbolic?

The commenter was not talking about sacraments, but the practice of commendation of the deceased at a funeral.

 

[ltwin]

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

Because for Baptists and others who share their views, there is no value for an infant to be baptized. If an infant is baptized, that says more about their parents then them. When they come to Christ at a later age, they will be responsible for making their own commitments to Christ and obey Christ’s command to be baptized.

The stakes are that someone baptized as an infant and never as an adult has failed to obey Christ by being baptized, their parents having them dumped in a baptismal font notwithstanding.

I don’t think it matters how one is baptized. I’m glad I was baptized by immersion, but I don’t see a biblical necessity for it. Other Christians see it differently.

 

[ltwin]

Hi Itwin, I appreciate you engaging in the discussion, but there are still a few outstanding items; namely, the scriptural evidence.

Can you provide scriptural evidence that baptism is a symbolic act that is completed for the purpose of outward expression?

Thanks!

It’s not that there is a statement that baptism is symbolic. It is that there is no actual scriptural evidence that baptism does what Catholics claim it does.

 

[cheezey]

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. 
   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?

 

[stewstew03]

…
The stakes are that someone baptized as an infant and never as an adult has failed to obey Christ by being baptized, their parents having them dumped in a baptismal font notwithstanding.
…

Thanks Itwin. Okay, so what are the consequences related to the above bolded portion?

 

[4Squarebaby]

Thanks Itwin. Okay, so what are the consequences related to the above bolded portion?

That they won’t be accepted as full voting members of that local congregation.

 

[stewstew03]

It’s not that there is a statement that baptism is symbolic.

At least you are willing to admit that “baptism as symbolism” is extra-biblical protestant Tradition.

It is that there is no actual scriptural evidence that baptism does what Catholics claim it does.

Plenty of evidence:

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 16:16[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 3:5[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:38[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 22:16[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Rom 6:3-7[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 6:11[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Gal 3:26-29[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Pet 3:21[/BIBLEDRB]

Now, if you can read all these passages and see words like “symbol” and “public expression,” while ignoring words that relate to salvation, then I’m going to have to ask that you turn in your Sola Scriptura badge…

 

[ioasaka87]

Bán li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u

Bán li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u: LK12-4 Di?n tÃch 66,6m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Dông B?c, m?t du?ng 24m, giá 4 t?
Bán li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u: LK3-36 Di?n tÃch 60m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Tây Nam, du?ng 13m, giá 3,6 t?
Bán nhÃ* li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u: LK6-23 Di?n tÃch 60,5m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Dông Nam, du?ng 13m, giá 3,7 t?
Bán nhà li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 B? công an: LK7-9 Di?n tÃch 60m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Tây B?c, du?ng 13m, giá 3,7 t?
Bán li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 B? công an: LK 14-23 Di?n tÃch 68m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Tây Nam, du?ng 13m, giá 3,3 t?
Bán li?n k? T?ng c?c 5: LK13-16 Di?n tÃ*ch 60m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng B?c, du?ng 13m, giá 3,3 t?

Giá trên DÃ bao g?m t?t c?: ti?n thu? s? d?ng d?t, ti?n d?u tu vÃo d?t và ti?n xây thô

Bán nhÃ* vu?n T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u:

Bán nhÃ* vu?n T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u: NV3-5 Di?n tÃch 100m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Dông B?c, du?ng 17m, giá 4,4 t?
Bán nhà vu?n T?ng c?c 5: NV5-21 Di?n tÃch 103m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Dông Nam, m?t ti?n 10m, du?ng 13m, giá 4,7 t?
Bán nhà vu?n T?ng c?c 5 B? công an: NV5-29 Di?n tÃch 100m2 xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Tây Nam, du?ng 13m, giá 4,7 t?
Bán nhà vu?n T?ng c?c 5 B? công an: NV8-9 Di?n tÃch 100m2 xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Dông Nam, du?ng 13m, giá 4,7 t?
Bán nhà vu?n T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u: NV3-22 Di?n tÃch 100m2m xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Tây Nam, du?ng 13m nhìn vÃo vu?n hoa, giá 4,8 t?
Bán nhÃ* vu?n T?ng c?c 5: NV4-37 Di?n tÃch 100m2, hu?ng Tây B?c, m?t ti?n 5m, du?ng 13m, giá 4,8 t?
Giá trên DÃ bao g?m t?t c?: ti?n thu? s? d?ng d?t, ti?n d?u tu vÃo d?t vÃ* ti?n xây thô

Quý khách có nhu c?u xin liên h? tr?c ti?p d? du?c tu v?n: Mr Son 0909858789 - 0979858789

www.chovo.vn

 

[ltwin]

At least you are willing to admit that “baptism as symbolism” is extra-biblical protestant Tradition.

No. It is taking what scripture says and using one word to effectively encapsulate all that scripture says.

Plenty of evidence:

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 16:16[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 3:5[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:38[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 22:16[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Rom 6:3-7[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 6:11[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Gal 3:26-29[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Pet 3:21[/BIBLEDRB]

You see in these scriptures that baptism has some mystical, sacramental, soul-changing, regenerative properties. I don’t. Some of these, 1 Corinthians 6:11, aren’t even really talking about baptism in water, but the transforming and sanctifying power of God that is at work in all truly born again believers. The others place baptism in the context of true repentance and faith.

Now, if you can read all these passages and see words like “symbol” and “public expression,” while ignoring words that relate to salvation, then I’m going to have to ask that you turn in your Sola Scriptura badge…

Who said I advocated Sola Scriptura? I’m actually more of a Prima Scriptura guy. I much prefer Wesley’s quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You see in these scriptures that baptism has some mystical, sacramental, soul-changing, regenerative properties. I don’t. Some of these, 1 Corinthians 6:11, aren’t even really talking about baptism in water, but the transforming and sanctifying power of God that is at work in all truly born again believers. The others place baptism in the context of true repentance and faith.

Brother, you are not a Church authority on your own. Hundreds of years and thousands of Church Fathers disagree with you. They have been consistenly led by the Spirit of Truth for all this time.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church has gottten this wrong since Christ our Lord?

Are you disagreeing with St. Peter?

Where is your Phillip?

 

[ltwin]

Thanks Itwin. Okay, so what are the consequences related to the above bolded portion?

Obstinate disobedience to Christ is a sin. The wages of sin is death. Though, one could argue that if someone did not know that their infant baptism was invalid, can that really be obstinate refusal to disobey Christ. If you thought you had obeyed Christ by being baptized as an infant, can this truly be sin unless you later discovered that you were never baptized to begin with and then you’d have the responsibility to undergo believer’s baptism, etc., etc.

My own personal opinion on all of this is that it really doesn’t matter to me how you were baptized. If you were baptized as a child based on the sponsorship of your parents and you have no qualms about that, then I’m fine with that. If you were baptized when older based on your own confession of faith, that’s good for me too.

If someone had been baptized as an infant and they somehow came to the conclusion that that form of baptism is invalid, then I would have no problem with that person undergoing believer’s baptism in order to stand before God with faith and a clean conscience.

My church is an independent Pentecostal church. We baptize new converts by immersion, and we ask on our membership form if applicants have been baptized. However, we practice open communion, and church participation is not really tied to being an “official member” so exactly how you were baptized does not really having any bearing on your status as a believer or how you will be treated as regular participant of our church fellowship. Most of the people who come to our church are not card carrying members anyway.

 

[ltwin]

Brother, you are not a Church authority on your own.

Never said I was an “authority.” The OP asked what’s up with Baptist, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament. As an evangelical, I’ve offered to explain some general trends. Feel free to ignore what I have to say if you want.

Hundreds of years and thousands of Church Fathers disagree with you. They have been consistenly led by the Spirit of Truth for all this time.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church has gottten this wrong since Christ our Lord?

Well, I’m not Catholic, so what it says has little bearing on what I believe. I believe the Church Fathers were and the Catholic Church has been led by Christ in somethings, but that in other ways they and it have erred, as have all Christians and churches.

Are you disagreeing with St. Peter?

No. Not on purpose anyway.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Never said I was an “authority.” The OP asked what’s up with Baptist, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament. As an evangelical, I’ve offered to explain some general trends. Feel free to ignore what I have to say if you want.

When you say that the Catholic Church is incorrect in its teaching, you are indeed making yourself an authority.

As for the ignore what you say… that is entirely up to me, isn’t it?

Well, I’m not Catholic, so what it says has little bearing on what I believe. I believe the Church Fathers were and the Catholic Church has been led by Christ in somethings, but that in other ways they and it have erred, as have all Christians and churches.

And here you make yourself an authority again. Not only has the Catholic Church erred but all the Christian Churches in the world as well!!!

Do you have a thesis that can be linked for this incredible amount of material?

No. Not on purpose anyway.

You know, of all the Apostles, Peter is the least I’d like to have to fight. He has this nasty habit of cutting people’s ears off…

 

[ltwin]

When you say that the Catholic Church is incorrect in its teaching, you are indeed making yourself an authority.

Depends on what you mean by “authority.” We are all free moral agents. We all have to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. We all have to discern the truth with the aid of God’s grace and the power of the Spirit, and in the light of God’s written word, and with reference to the teachers and shepherds God has placed over us.

And here you make yourself an authority again. Not only has the Catholic Church erred but all the Christian Churches in the world as well!!!

Do you have a thesis that can be linked for this incredible amount of material?

Yes, all churches have erred in their manner of life and ministry, but also in their doctrine and teachings. If the churches had not erred there would have been no need for church councils adjudicating the endless controversies over doctrine and heresy. The East/West Schisms would never have happened. And there would have been no need for a Protestant Reformation.

 

[stewstew03]

Obstinate disobedience to Christ is a sin. The wages of sin is death. Though, one could argue that if someone did not know that their infant baptism was invalid, can that really be obstinate refusal to disobey Christ. If you thought you had obeyed Christ by being baptized as an infant, can this truly be sin unless you later discovered that you were never baptized to begin with and then you’d have the responsibility to undergo believer’s baptism, etc., etc.

My own personal opinion on all of this is that it really doesn’t matter to me how you were baptized. If you were baptized as a child based on the sponsorship of your parents and you have no qualms about that, then I’m fine with that. If you were baptized when older based on your own confession of faith, that’s good for me too.

If someone had been baptized as an infant and they somehow came to the conclusion that that form of baptism is invalid, then I would have no problem with that person undergoing believer’s baptism in order to stand before God with faith and a clean conscience.

My church is an independent Pentecostal church. We baptize new converts by immersion, and we ask on our membership form if applicants have been baptized. However, we practice open communion, and church participation is not really tied to being an “official member” so exactly how you were baptized does not really having any bearing on your status as a believer or how you will be treated as regular participant of our church fellowship. Most of the people who come to our church are not card carrying members anyway.

Just to be clear… your position is that baptism has no regenerative effect, but the absence of baptism has a degenerative effect?