Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

  • Thread starter Thread starter stewstew03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you Mormon? You have a picture of Jesus in your sig from the LDS sites.
Why?
:confused:

How about the question in post # 109? I’d like to understand. (And if I missed its reply, I apologize. Feel free to direct me. I think it’s simpler than Bix’ question, and I’ll look for that reply, tool. Thanks!
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??? :o

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.
I wonder, too, so I’ll look for this reply, as well. Thank you.
 
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.
. . . .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.
. . . .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.
How did you decide the “how” is the only important issue in Baptism? Scripture has many things to say about Baptism.

Would being buried and raised with Christ through Baptism impart less than the Baptism of John–who called all to baptism for repentance and forgiveness of sins?

Mark 1 (ESV):
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’"

4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 3:
2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight.

Baptism is far more than symbolic.

Romans 6:
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Baptism is the “Circumcision made without hands.” Baptism brings us into the New Covenant through Christ, just as circumcision brought Israel into the Old Covenant. Graces are imparted during Baptism, including the forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 2:
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility

Colossians 2:
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

11** In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.**

Colossians states very clearly the circumcision without hands is the “putting off of the body of the flesh,” by “circumcision of Christ”----being “buried with Him in Baptism,” and “raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.”

Baptism is more inclusive than the circumcision of the Old Covenant.

Galatians 3 (ESV):
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Notice, when you are baptized into Christ, you become the offspring of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.

You have to ignore nearly everything the N.T. says about Baptism in order to claim that immersion, the “how” as you put it, is the only significant issue, or to claim that Baptism is purely symbolic.

Anna
 
Not really. “How” can have a broader semantic range than “in what manner.” But sometimes it just means “in what manner” and that is all. It’s context-dependent. You understand the context and the meaning of what I am saying to you, and you choose to play games with semantics. This doesn’t mean you are a clever girl. It means something else.
 
Why?
:confused:

How about the question in post # 109? I’d like to understand. (And if I missed its reply, I apologize. Feel free to direct me. I think it’s simpler than Bix’ question, and I’ll look for that reply, tool. Thanks!

I wonder, too, so I’ll look for this reply, as well. Thank you.
I was just curious. That’s all. 😃

My job (the one where I actually get a paycheck) involves printing the local Knights of Columbus monthly newsletter.

My boss is Catholic and I noticed that in one of their newsletters they were using the Mormon Jesus so, naturally, I asked why?

I haven’t seen it since. 🙂
 
Not really. “How” can have a broader semantic range than “in what manner.” But sometimes it just means “in what manner” and that is all.
Exactly.

So one cannot simply ask the question: “how was Jesus baptized?” and expect that anyone would assume, “Why, by immersion, of course!”

Someone might quite validly say, “Why, by his cousin, of course!”

As I (ever so cleverly :)) showed, there are lots of answers to “how was” something done. Sometimes the answer is: by a person.

So, again, it’s curious that people who claim to “baptize the way Jesus was baptized” don’t make it a criterion to have it done by their cousin.
 
This doesn’t mean you are a clever girl.
Kudos to you, Monergistic, for being only a Trial Member yet knowing that I am female. Usually the default gender for me is “male”.



I wonder, though, how you guessed? Was it simply chance?

Or have you been here before and been banned (twice, perhaps?)

No matter. It is always good to see folks here in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

I suggest that you follow the model of some wonderful, honorable non-Catholic Christians who have been here a long time so that you can stay and chat for a while.
 
Kudos to you, Monergistic, for being only a Trial Member yet knowing that I am female. Usually the default gender for me is “male”.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/2eaa1ddcb2ee1705c2217822321b11ed/tumblr_mgqh0dK0O11qazkdco4_250.gif

I wonder, though, how you guessed? Was it simply chance?

Or have you been here before and been banned (twice, perhaps?)

No matter. It is always good to see folks here in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

I suggest that you follow the model of some wonderful, honorable non-Catholic Christians who have been here a long time so that you can stay and chat for a while.
Busted! Perhaps you ARE a clever girl…!
😉
 
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 👍 ]
Just my two cents coming into the conversation late. I think that baptism being a public display of faith owes more to the viewpoints of the revival movement than it does to historic Baptist theology. It was more standard in early Baptist confessions to be a signification of the union between the Christian and the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. In other words, it showed in covenantal sign what the Christian had experienced spiritually. This is especially true in the Calvinistic Baptist confessions (1st and 2nd London confessions, for example). Another poster stated that being immersed doesn’t really portray burial…but this is clearly what Paul has in mind in Romans 6.
 
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?
True, Miriam, and that is a common paedobaptist argument (especially Presbyterian). It is predicated on baptism being a new covenant correspondence to circumcision. We do not, however, see baptism as the fulfillment of circumcision. We see regeneration/the new birth as the fulfillment of circumcision. Baptism is the sign of regeneration. We only apply it to those who we can confirm have been regenerated. That is not to say that infants cannot be regenerate, but we cannot confirm it through profession of faith.
 
True, Miriam, and that is a common paedobaptist argument (especially Presbyterian). It is predicated on baptism being a new covenant correspondence to circumcision. We do not, however, see baptism as the fulfillment of circumcision. We see regeneration/the new birth as the fulfillment of circumcision. Baptism is the sign of regeneration. We only apply it to those who we can confirm have been regenerated. That is not to say that infants cannot be regenerate, but we cannot confirm it through profession of faith.
GB…but look at the baptisms that JtheB was doing. He baptized people before the death of Christ. If we go by your equation, John should have waited until after the death of Christ so that people could confirm their belief with their baptism.

I am for believer’s baptism. When people join the Catholic Church and have not been baptized before, they partake in a believer’s baptism. However, you believe that baptism has nothing to do with one’s salvation?
 
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?
    yes? no?
    Are you Mormon? You have a picture of Jesus in your sig from the LDS sites.
    No one replied to this aside to ask if Cheezy was LDS.

    I have the same question. I converted from … Oh, no!!! Baptist. 🙂
    and there’s still my question. Again, if I missed an answer somewhere, forgive me and point!! Thanks
    I was just curious. That’s all. 😃

    My job (the one where I actually get a paycheck) involves printing the local Knights of Columbus monthly newsletter.

    My boss is Catholic and I noticed that in one of their newsletters they were using the Mormon Jesus so, naturally, I asked why?

    I haven’t seen it since. 🙂
    ok! always good to be curious. thought it was related to the thread…🙂
 
Originally Posted by cheezey
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?
I already answered this for ya in a PM lol but I will do it here for all. 😉

If you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Methodist, Baptist, etc…etc, then the Catholic Church says your baptism is valid and a Sacrament whether or not you saw it as one when it happened. The Church would not baptize you again. Now if your records are lost and no one can witness for you, then the Church would perform a conditional baptism which is done usually in private. The priest or deacon would say that “I conditionally baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” If you were baptized before, this baptism is a blessing. If for some reason you were not, this conditional baptism is no different than any other and is still a Sacrament and you gain the grace of God from it. 🙂
 
Originally Posted by Miriam1947
Are you Mormon? You have a picture of Jesus in your sig from the LDS sites.
A Baptist can use a “Catholic” image of Christ. 😉 lol
 
I already answered this for ya in a PM lol but I will do it here for all. 😉

If you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Methodist, Baptist, etc…etc, then the Catholic Church says your baptism is valid and a Sacrament whether or not you saw it as one when it happened. The Church would not baptize you again. Now if your records are lost and no one can witness for you, then the Church would perform a conditional baptism which is done usually in private. The priest or deacon would say that “I conditionally baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” If you were baptized before, this baptism is a blessing. If for some reason you were not, this conditional baptism is no different than any other and is still a Sacrament and you gain the grace of God from it. 🙂
:thankyou:
A Baptist can use a “Catholic” image of Christ. 😉 lol
as can others…
and :thankyou: again. I have too much on my mind.
 
Just my two cents coming into the conversation late. I think that baptism being a public display of faith owes more to the viewpoints of the revival movement than it does to historic Baptist theology. It was more standard in early Baptist confessions to be a signification of the union between the Christian and the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. In other words, it showed in covenantal sign what the Christian had experienced spiritually. This is especially true in the Calvinistic Baptist confessions (1st and 2nd London confessions, for example). Another poster stated that being immersed doesn’t really portray burial…but this is clearly what Paul has in mind in Romans 6.
Hi Gaelic - so we agree, then, that baptism as a public display of one’s faith is not found in scripture?
 
GB…but look at the baptisms that JtheB was doing. He baptized people before the death of Christ. If we go by your equation, John should have waited until after the death of Christ so that people could confirm their belief with their baptism.

I am for believer’s baptism. When people join the Catholic Church and have not been baptized before, they partake in a believer’s baptism. However, you believe that baptism has nothing to do with one’s salvation?
John the Baptist’s baptisms are not the model for Christian baptism. We follow the practice of the apostles, not John. John’s ritual purifications were not new. Those had existed in Judaism for centuries before Christ. It was customary for non-Hebrew converts to be baptized. John’s was strictly a sign of repentance, was non-Trinitarian and had no connection to the burial and resurrection of Christ and was in the Old Covenant era.

Has nothing to do with one’s salvation? Yes I believe it does. One cannot profess faith in Christ and ignore His comnands. It doesn’t have to be salvific to be a necessary component of Christian faith. It is enough for Jesus to say “whoever believes and is baptized wil be saved.” We can just take it for what He says.
 
Hi Gaelic - so we agree, then, that baptism as a public display of one’s faith is not found in scripture?
Hey stew. Yes, I would say it is not a profession of faith. One could just say Jesus is Lord and forego baptism, if that’s all it was.
 
Hey stew. Yes, I would say it is not a profession of faith. One could just say Jesus is Lord and forego baptism, if that’s all it was.
Thanks for engaging, Gaelic. It seems others have dropped off the thread… :rolleyes:

I’m still struggling with this idea that a command from God can have no bearing on one’s soul. Can you help me out with that? Are there any other Commands that we can ignore with impunity?
 
Thanks for engaging, Gaelic. It seems others have dropped off the thread… :rolleyes:

I’m still struggling with this idea that a command from God can have no bearing on one’s soul. Can you help me out with that? Are there any other Commands that we can ignore with impunity?
i am still reading. not well versed enough to do anything else. also, still confused, but what else is new. trying to learn from others’ posts…
 
It is enough for Jesus to say “whoever believes and is baptized wil be saved.” We can just take it for what He says.
The Catholic way is to not take Scripture in isolation and conclude that “it is enough.”

Rather, Catholics look at the Word of God in its entirety.

This is how Catholics believe that we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top