Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

[stewstew03]

No, not a straw man argument. It is simply the natural progression of dialogue.

No discussion perseverates on the original question. Usually by page 3 the topic is resolved, and the discussion morphs into other tributaries.

Nothing wrong with that.

Except… topic hasn’t been resolved.

I’m still wondering - 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?

Itwin’s response (paraphrasing) is that you won’t find it, but that you’ll arrive at such a conclusion after reading the scriptures. [by the way - appreciate the dialogue Itwin ]

We have learned, however, that while baptism in and of itself has no effect on the soul, the absence of baptism indicates (possibly) an “unsaved” soul.

We also learned (from the SBC site) that baptism is like wearing a wedding ring. And in light of what’ve learned concerning the absence of baptism, I’m wondering - if I decide not to wear my wedding ring, does that have any effect on my soul…??

 

[PRmerger]

PR I can see Itwin’s point on some of these “irrelevant issues”. After all John the Baptist was baptizing all peoples and not just his cousins.

Here’s the thing, adf: Jesus was baptized in the River Jordan by his cousin.

If people want to proclaim that they baptize “the way Jesus was baptized”, then, naturally, one would assume that they are baptizing in the River Jordan by their cousins.

I don’t see how John’s other baptisms have relevance. We do not follow what John did.

We are, apparently, following what Jesus did.

What is still intriguing is Jesus’ age issue that you brought up earlier but lost interest in. When arguing infant baptism vs. the “just like Jesus did it” paradigm, this is absolutely one criterion that could be followed much more closely if one chooses to. Jesus being baptized in his 30’s is a far cry from “age of reason: and is completely attainable for all those who would want to abide by the “just as Jesus did it” paradigm as closely as they profess.

Peace!!!

Indeed.

And yet I have never seen anybody make the claim that it’s imperative that a person be baptized in his thirties.

Why do you think they take one particular quality of Jesus’ baptism (immersion) but ignore all the other ones? He was, after all, only baptized in his 30’s.

Catholics, of course, do not claim to make the baptism follow how Jesus was baptized.

 

[PRmerger]

Except… topic hasn’t been resolved.

True, dat. :sad_yes:

I’m still wondering - 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?

Itwin’s response (paraphrasing) is that you won’t find it, but that you’ll arrive at such a conclusion after reading the scriptures. [by the way - appreciate the dialogue Itwin

And yet there are so many who read the very same Scriptures and arrive at a different conclusion…

We have learned, however, that while baptism in and of itself has no effect on the soul, the absence

of baptism indicates (possibly) an “unsaved” soul.

We also learned (from the SBC site) that baptism is like wearing a wedding ring. And in light of what’ve learned concerning the absence of baptism, I’m wondering - if I decide not to wear my wedding ring, does that have any effect on my soul…??

It would appear that if you are disobedient to your wife’s command to wear one, then you will be unsaved (that is, sleep on the couch).
[/quote]

 

[ltwin]

And this would be a completley unbiblical, man-made invention. If this were true, all adults, who presumeably are “converted” prior to their Baptism, would not be in need of Baptism. You are saying that they can ignore Jesus’ command to go forth and teach all nations “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.

Yet scripture tells us that thousands heard the words of the Apostles, believed and then were Baptized. Why would the Apostles have done this if it were not necessary?

I’m not saying that. We’re talking about Quakers.

 

[ltwin]

Where does the Bible say that being baptized in the name of Christ = washed by the blood baptism?

I don’t know what a “washed by the blood baptism” is. Being washed by the blood refers to being cleansed of sin by Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. I’m referring to someone who has faith in Christ and has truly repented of sin and exhibits the Fruit of the Spirit, but has not been properly baptized according to the criteria of most Christians.

 

[Monergistic]

Why do you think they take one particular quality of Jesus’ baptism (immersion) but ignore all the other ones?

I think I can help you with this. Suppose you are about to baptize someone. A particularly pressing question is “How…how…how should I go about doing this?” How, if you please. How. How is it done? How.

I think you’re making a bit of a mistake in what you’ve been doing here. Protestants ask themselves (and each other) how, How, how should we do this? How. Often, they attempt to answer this question by looking to the example of Jesus. They look to see How He was baptized.

The answer to that question- when properly limited to the How- is by immersion. Just about all of the other answers that strictly pertain to How are in the realm of speculation (like how long was he under- just immersed for a moment or for several, exactly how was he dressed, probably)? You have raised a number of other issues and asked “Why do you ignore these?” The answer is that they don’t pertain to the How, how, how, How, in what way or manner was the act carried out, How.

For example, you bring up who he was baptized by. Where He was baptized. Why He was baptized. But when Protestants are deciding How to do this, that’s all they’re doing. Ultimately, it seems that you are broadening the issue beyond what is ever under real consideration by conflating the meanings of How, Where, by Whom, and perhaps Why. That’s not how it works, though. That’s not what we’re doing when we look to Jesus’ baptism as an example. We’re only asking How, and “by immersion” is about the only thing you can say with certainty about how it was done.

So that’s why immersion (How Jesus was baptized) tends to emerge as a singular point of interest. There are reasons that make sense. It’s not random and arbitrary. So before you go back to doing that some more- the Jordan River is not how Jesus was baptized. That’s where. It is the place, not the form. John the Baptist is not the person how Jesus was baptized. (Not a typo). John the Baptist is who baptized Jesus. He is the person, not the form. Early 30’s is not how Jesus was baptized, that was his age when he was baptized. The age, not the form. Are we ignoring these things? Not really, per se. It’s just that when we’re working out the form (and if we happen to look to Jesus’ baptism as a baptism to emulate), How is the relevant thing.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know what a “washed by the blood baptism” is. Being washed by the blood refers to being cleansed of sin by Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. I’m referring to someone who has faith in Christ and has truly repented of sin and exhibits the Fruit of the Spirit, but has not been properly baptized according to the criteria of most Christians.

Okay.

So then you are of the belief that Christ’s atoning blood is being offered in heaven in perpetuity?

 

[PRmerger]

The answer to that question- when properly limited to the How- is by immersion.

No, Mongergistic.

If you take an alien, show him the Scripture verses detailing the baptism of Jesus, and ask him, “How”? He might respond: by his cousin!

or: in the River Jordan!

It is absolutely NOT the notable criterion that he was baptized by immersion.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

There is a footnote in J. C. Ryle’s book Knots Untied that wonders about this, too. Ryle was an evangelical and reformed voice in the Anglican church of the mid to late 1800’s who was opposed to the Liberal Catholic direction the church was moving in.

I am quite aware that the whole body of Christians called Friends, or Quakers, reject water-baptism, and allow of no baptism except the inward baptism of the heart. To their own Master they must stand or fall. I am not their Judge. The grace, faith, and holiness of many Quakers are beyond all question. They are simple matters of fact. Christians like Mrs. Fry and J. J. Gurney most evidently had received the Holy Ghost, and would reflect honour on any Church. Would God that many baptized Christians were like them! But the best people are fallible at their best. How people, so sensible and well read as many Quakers have been and are, can possibly refuse to see water-baptism in Scripture, as an ordinance obligatory on all professing Christians, is a problem which I cannot pretend to solve. It passes my understanding. I can only suppose that God allows the Quakers to be a perpetual testimony against Romish views of water-baptism, and a standing witness to the Churches that God can, in some cases, give grace without the use of any sacraments at all!

It’s definitely uncomfortable for me that Quakers have this view of water baptism and Communion, but I can’t hope to judge them on how Christian they are.

Where does the Bible say that being baptized in the name of Christ = washed by the blood baptism?

“Washed by the blood of Christ” is saying that your sins have been forgiven by Christ.

By “baptized in the name of Christ” Itwin is referring to specific Pentecostal groups (the Oneness) that believe that baptism must be done by the formula “In Jesus’ name” instead of “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

 

[Miriam1947]

Part of the reason we have differences of opinion on the propriety of infant baptism is that scripture does not specify in those instances of household baptisms whether young children or infants were involved. Credo-baptists would definitely deny such an assumption. One writer states, “in three of the four cases of household baptisms named in the New Testament there is positive proof that there was not an infant in these households.” truthmagazine.com/archives/volume45/V4503150108.htm

But if baptism is the new covenant and replaces the old covenant of circumcision and the Jews were circumcised at 8 days, doesn’t it make sense that baptism should also be for infants?

 

[jrtrent]

But if baptism is the new covenant and replaces the old covenant of circumcision and the Jews were circumcised at 8 days, doesn’t it make sense that baptism should also be for infants?

Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense. As I mentioned in another post, my Anglican church baptizes infants, and I have no problem with that. I also recognize that there is no clear example of infant baptism in scripture, and I understand the position taken by credobaptists.

J. C. Ryle, an Anglican Bishop of the late 1800’s, offered these reasons why infant Baptism makes sense:

a. children were admitted into the Old Testament Church by a formal ordinance [that’s your point about circumcision]

b. the baptism of children is nowhere forbidden in the New Testament

c. the baptism of households is specially mentioned in the New Testament

d. the behavior of our Lord Jesus Christ to little children

Additional points Ryle made:

1. before Christ, when proselytes were received into the Jewish church by baptism, their infants were baptized with them
2. infant baptism was the universal practice of all the early Christians
3. the vast majority of leaders in the Protestant Reformation maintained that infants should be baptized

 

[ltwin]

Okay.

So then you are of the belief that Christ’s atoning blood is being offered in heaven in perpetuity?

What? It’s a finished work.

 

[PRmerger]

What? It’s a finished work.

Indeed. That is very Catholic.

But if you, or someone in your church, can be saved by the atoning blood of Christ today, 2000 years after the fact, it would appear that this saving work is still occurring today.

 

[Monergistic]

No, Mongergistic.

If you take an alien, show him the Scripture verses detailing the baptism of Jesus, and ask him, “How”? He might respond: by his cousin!

or: in the River Jordan!

It is absolutely NOT the notable criterion that he was baptized by immersion.

Then I would first have to teach the alien the difference between How and Who. And then I’d have to teach the alien the difference between How and Where.

But maybe, just maybe, the alien first needs to learn how to understand anything at all, learn when something has been done incorrectly, and use that understanding to refrain from making silly mistakes over and over and over again.

The alien, I mean. Is this alien intelligent and capable of learning some simple things about language and grammar? That’s all you really need- and when I say “you,” that’s a broad reference to aliens everywhere.

 

[Bix]

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:

And with you as well.

 

[Bix]

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?

No one replied to this aside to ask if Cheezy was LDS.

I have the same question. I converted from … Oh, no!!! Baptist.

Seriously, why does the Church accept these if as Stew Stew says they have no purpose aside from symbolic and have no affect on the soul? Why are people insulted by this type of baptism???

I don’t understand. The Church accepts it, so what or where is the insult?

Maybe my church was odd, but baptism was required if you wanted to become a Christian unless it was a life or death situation or some other extreme circumstance.

Also, Im not familiar with Catholics having to be re baptized. ( at least not where I went as a child or where I attended and taught or where my parents or other family attended) . . . In a situation where one was converting and already baptized, they merely made a public proclamation of their desire to convert during service.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense. As I mentioned in another post, my Anglican church baptizes infants, and I have no problem with that. I also recognize that there is no clear example of infant baptism in scripture, and I understand the position taken by credobaptists.

The reason we do not see any “clear” examples in Scripture is because many if not all of those who converted were adults. Take my family for example. I converted to the Church, and was already baptized in the Southern Baptist denomination. My wife was never baptized so therefore she baptized as an adult. That would be the example of believer’s baptism that I subscribe to. Now my two boys were baptized as infants because they followed my conversion. If we already had our two boys, then our household would have all been baptized except me, because I already was.

For the Jews, they would circumcise at 8 days old, but if a adult male became Jewish, he also would be circumcised as an adult. Moses is a wonderful example of that. So with the New Covenant we still circumcise (baptism) infants and when converts come in, we do the same if they were not baptized before converting.

So there are examples of infant baptism in Scripture. Just depends on how you are looking at it.

 

[PRmerger]

Then I would first have to teach the alien the difference between How and Who. And then I’d have to teach the alien the difference between How and Where.

You probably would have to start with teaching our society “the difference between How and Who”, Mongergistic.

It appears that it is a widespread phenomenon to answer the question, “How was” with…a person (or group of people, as the facts lie).

Check out all these websites that answer the question: “how was…” with a person or a group of people…

How was Obama elected to the Harvard Law review? (answer given: by the editors…)

How was Jesus tempted? (answer given: by Satan.)

How was Abraham Lincoln assassinated? (answer given: by John Wilkes Booth).

So one couldn’t fault the alien, or any other member of our society, with concluding to the question, “How was Jesus baptized?” with “By John the Baptist”.

Right?

 

[PRmerger]

Seriously, why does the Church accept these if as Stew Stew says they have no purpose aside from symbolic and have no affect on the soul? Why are people insulted by this type of baptism???

Because the CC understands the truth of what really occurred at their baptism, even if the particular denomination doesn’t know it.

The universe is changed forever, Bix. An indelible mark is placed on the soul of the newly baptized!

That makes nuclear fission appear as child’s play!

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monergistic
The answer to that question- when properly limited to the How- is by immersion.

Really? Chapter and verse where full immersion is the ONLY acceptable method? Tell me something:

What if one lives near the cold waters of Alaska and it is the only available water to baptize?

Does such a person not ever get baptized?