Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

  • Thread starter Thread starter stewstew03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for engaging, Gaelic. It seems others have dropped off the.hread… :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?
A command of God, by its very nature, cannot be ignored with impunity. A command is a command. It does not have to be salvific in order for it to be a command that must be obeyed. God commands many things in both Old and New Covenants that did not, in and of themselves save anyone. Ignoring them, however, would put one outside the covenant community. Circumcision and the Passover would be explicit examples. If someone professes faith in Christ, but refuses baptism, we would not consider them Christians.
 
A command of God, by its very nature, cannot be ignored with impunity. A command is a command. It does not have to be salvific in order for it to be a command that must be obeyed. God commands many things in both Old and New Covenants that did not, in and of themselves save anyone. Ignoring them, however, would put one outside the covenant community. Circumcision and the Passover would be explicit examples. If someone professes faith in Christ, but refuses baptism, we would not consider them Christians.
So, for Abraham, circumcision was optional? I’m not trying to be flippant, by the way, but I am perplexed by this line of reasoning in light of Genesis 17.
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
 
So, for Abraham, circumcision was optional? I’m not trying to be flippant, by the way, but I am perplexed by this line of reasoning in light of Genesis 17.
I’m wondering how you got it’s optional from what I said?
 
I’m wondering how you got it’s optional from what I said?
My apologies, perhaps I read too much into your response. You said God commands many things that do not save anyone, and provided the example of Circumcision and Passover.

If Abraham had disobeyed God, would it have had any effect on his soul?
 
My apologies, perhaps I read too much into your response. You said God commands many things that do not save anyone, and provided the example of Circumcision and Passover.

If Abraham had disobeyed God, would it have had any effect on his soul?
Okay. Yes, what I meant is that God commanded things that did not grant salvation simply by doing them. However, refusing to do them would give evidence that faith in God was absent in the person. No one was born again or forgiven by celebrating the Passover. Refusing to do it would be indication that the person did not believe the word of God (vis a vie the Exodus event) and that person would be expulsed from the community. The same with circumcision. Had Abraham not obeyed the command, could we really say he was a servant of Yaweh? Of course not. Yet we know his obedience to the command did nothing to justify him, as Paul belabors the point in Rom. 4 and elsewhere that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised.
 
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)
 
Okay. Yes, what I meant is that God commanded things that did not grant salvation simply by doing them. However, refusing to do them would give evidence that faith in God was absent in the person. No one was born again or forgiven by celebrating the Passover. Refusing to do it would be indication that the person did not believe the word of God (vis a vie the Exodus event) and that person would be expulsed from the community. The same with circumcision. Had Abraham not obeyed the command, could we really say he was a servant of Yaweh? Of course not. Yet we know his obedience to the command did nothing to justify him, as Paul belabors the point in Rom. 4 and elsewhere that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised.
Okay, I’m with you.

So, if a believer refuses baptism, or sees it as unnecessary… he or she is (a) Saved or (b) Unsaved?
 
Okay, I’m with you.

So, if a believer refuses baptism, or sees it as unnecessary… he or she is (a) Saved or (b) Unsaved?
Refuses is different from seeing a believers baptism as unnecessary. From the general other then Baptist Evangelic world the answer would be saved. Those who see it as necessary don’t see most Catholics as Christians because most did not choose and when they did choose it was to refuse a baptism after they came to belief in God.
 
Okay, I’m with you.

So, if a believer refuses baptism, or sees it as unnecessary… he or she is (a) Saved or (b) Unsaved?
In as much as we can know the person’s heart…yes, we would treat them as unregenerate. To deny doing something which Christ commands would be tantamount to a denial of His divine authority. As baptism is the sign of regeneration, denial of it would be a denial of regeneration. It would be much the same as the early Gnostics who refused communion because they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. To deny the sign is to deny the thing it signifies. Circumcision was a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham. If Abraham denied the sign, he’d have been denying the covenant and God’s promises that went with it.
 
. . . Again, if I missed an answer somewhere, forgive me and point!! . . .
Cheezey,
Just wondering if you missed my post #181 in which I said:

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.

Look forward to your response. 🙂

Anna
 
Refuses is different from seeing a believers baptism as unnecessary. From the general other then Baptist Evangelic world the answer would be saved. Those who see it as necessary don’t see most Catholics as Christians because most did not choose and when they did choose it was to refuse a baptism after they came to belief in God.
4Squarebaby,

This is very confusing. How can one assume that most Catholics are not Christians based on infant Baptism, and what refusal after they come to believe in God are you talking about?

Anna
 
4Squarebaby,

This is very confusing. How can one assume that most Catholics are not Christians based on infant Baptism, and what refusal after they come to believe in God are you talking about?

Anna
You are emphasizing the baptism or actions of the baptizer, they are emphasizing the actions or non actions of the believer.
 
In as much as we can know the person’s heart…yes, we would treat them as unregenerate. To deny doing something which Christ commands would be tantamount to a denial of His divine authority. As baptism is the sign of regeneration, denial of it would be a denial of regeneration. It would be much the same as the early Gnostics who refused communion because they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. To deny the sign is to deny the thing it signifies. Circumcision was a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham. If Abraham denied the sign, he’d have been denying the covenant and God’s promises that went with it.
Then we (almost) agree, Gaelic.

For you, baptism is not a spiritual event. Believers are prompted by the Holy Spirit to be baptized, and if not baptized, then obviously not saved. But it is the mental assent – the belief in God – that actually saves, and everything else is non-essential for one’s salvation.

For Catholics (and some Protestants), baptism is a spiritual event. Baptism saves because we receive God’s grace through Jesus Christ. It is a free gift - a person doesn’t actually need to do anything except become the recipient of God’s free grace through the merits of Jesus Christ.

I’m wondering - is marriage viewed the same way? Someone on this thread mentioned the SBC website earlier and its reference to baptism being like a wedding ring (although I can’t find this in the bible). But let’s say a young Christian man and a young Christian woman decide to get married. They love one another and commit to one another for life, but they are still young - let’s say 18. As a result of their age, they decide to wait to have a public profession of their marriage until they are 28 (ten years after their commitment to one another). After this mutual assent, they decide to live together as husband and wife and have children.

By age 25, they have two children, are happily “married,” but they have not yet had a public ceremony in a church. Have they committed fornication?
 
You are emphasizing the baptism or actions of the baptizer, they are emphasizing the actions or non actions of the believer.
Nope. An infant who is baptized receives God’s grace freely - through the merits of Jesus Christ. Through Adam, we inherited death and sin - through the New Adam (Jesus Christ) the stain of Adam is washed away and we receive a new life in Christ.
 
Nope. An infant who is baptized receives God’s grace freely - through the merits of Jesus Christ. Through Adam, we inherited death and sin - through the New Adam (Jesus Christ) the stain of Adam is washed away and we receive a new life in Christ.
And then the those who believe that a believer’s baptism is necessary will come back with their position.

For the larger Evangelic world, the Quaker, the Catholic and the Salvationist are saved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top