Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

[Gaelic_Bard]

Correct - I brought up marriage to illustrate the point with baptism. That is, you’re perfectly willing to accept that a Church ceremony is required to create a covenant with God; and you’re willing to accept that the Church ceremony extends God’s grace to the married couple in such a way that wipes away the sin of fornication.

I wouldn’t say it wipes away the sin of fornication. God’s grace is God’s forgiveness for sin having been committed. It prevents fornication, yes. It doesn’t forgive it. If the couple had sexual relations prior to marriage, their getting married wouldn’t wipe away previous fornication. Marriage is a function of God’s law, not His grace.

But you’re completely unwilling to accept that baptism changes a person’s standing with God; and unwilling to accept that baptism wipes away the stain of original sin.

So why accept the marriage ceremony but not the baptismal ceremony?

You’re operating under the assumption that because we believe baptism does not regenerate or justify, it is therefore entirely insignificant. That is a non-sequitur.

 

[stewstew03]

I wouldn’t say it wipes away the sin of fornication.

I wouldn’t either.

God’s grace is God’s forgiveness for sin having been committed.

Yes.

It prevents fornication, yes. It doesn’t forgive it.

Right - the marriage ceremony extends God’s grace such that it prevents fornication.

If the couple had sexual relations prior to marriage, their getting married wouldn’t wipe away previous fornication.

You said that already, and I agree.

Marriage is a function of God’s law, not His grace.

Okay…

You’re operating under the assumption that because we believe baptism does not regenerate or justify, it is therefore entirely insignificant. That is a non-sequitur.

Just to clarify - the “we” in this sentence refers to Baptists, correct?

And of course I’m operating under that assumption. Baptists view baptism as nothing more than a badge to display, or a piece of jewelry to wear.

 

[cuddlz24]

@stewstew…lol, well, unfortunately things that are different are not the same and ecumenism, that is the compromise of the truth, has no place in Christianity. In Matthew (as in the other gospels, but I use the first account in the gospels of the passover meal before Christ’s crucufixion) 26:26-29 Jesus takes bread, blesses it, then breaks it distributing it to the disciples and says “Take, eat; this is my body”, he does the same with the cup, saying “This is my blood of the new testament”. The disciples knew they weren’t eating his body and drinking Christ’s blood, as he was standing there right in front of them. Even they knew that this was a symbol at the time, although a full understading of its ramifications were probably only realized after their Saviour’s death. So do we partake in breaking of bread, and taking of the cup…SYMBOLS of the body and blood of Christ, as is the only other ordinance that Christ commands us to remember, and that is baptism. There is nothing here, or in 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, the other passage in the Bible that speaks of this ordinance, that even remotely points to the cannibilization of Christ’s body. If the rest of the Bible, in the OT specifically denounces cannibalism, why is it suddenly encouraged in the New Testament? Do you taste blood when you drink the juice or wine when you do communion? Of course not, because it is not blood, but a symbol of Christ’s shed blood on the cross. And as for the public profession part, there was someone who thought that is all that “baptists” think baptism is. I was just pointing out that obviously there is more to it than that.

No, when you repent/confess of your sin, that is an acknowledgment of the inheritance of your sin nature from Adam, and you place your faith in Christ, you are saved.
Romans 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:13 - For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Acts 20:21 - Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (*note - “Greeks” is also representative of us, the Gentiles, as well)
Matthew 3:1-6 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

After being saved, one should be baptized as those in the Bible were. Since our model is the Bible though, we believe that even though we repeat observances symbolically, we should imitate them the way they were first done and described in Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

If the rest of the Bible, in the OT specifically denounces cannibalism, why is it suddenly encouraged in the New Testament?

This is a curious position. You are against cannibalism, but you think that *symbolic *cannibalism is fine?

If murder is wrong, would you re-enact a murder in a symbolic way and think that was holy?

 

[stewstew03]

@stewstew…lol, well, unfortunately things that are different are not the same and ecumenism, that is the compromise of the truth, has no place in Christianity. In Matthew (as in the other gospels, but I use the first account in the gospels of the passover meal before Christ’s crucufixion) 26:26-29 Jesus takes bread, blesses it, then breaks it distributing it to the disciples and says “Take, eat; this is my body”, he does the same with the cup, saying “This is my blood of the new testament”. The disciples knew they weren’t eating his body and drinking Christ’s blood, as he was standing there right in front of them. Even they knew that this was a symbol at the time, although a full understading of its ramifications were probably only realized after their Saviour’s death. So do we partake in breaking of bread, and taking of the cup…SYMBOLS of the body and blood of Christ, as is the only other ordinance that Christ commands us to remember, and that is baptism. There is nothing here, or in 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, the other passage in the Bible that speaks of this ordinance, that even remotely points to the cannibilization of Christ’s body. If the rest of the Bible, in the OT specifically denounces cannibalism, why is it suddenly encouraged in the New Testament? Do you taste blood when you drink the juice or wine when you do communion? Of course not, because it is not blood, but a symbol of Christ’s shed blood on the cross. And as for the public profession part, there was someone who thought that is all that “baptists” think baptism is. I was just pointing out that obviously there is more to it than that.

No, when you repent/confess of your sin, that is an acknowledgment of the inheritance of your sin nature from Adam, and you place your faith in Christ, you are saved.
Romans 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:13 - For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Acts 20:21 - Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (*note - “Greeks” is also representative of us, the Gentiles, as well)
Matthew 3:1-6 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

After being saved, one should be baptized as those in the Bible were. Since our model is the Bible though, we believe that even though we repeat observances symbolically, we should imitate them the way they were first done and described in Scripture.

Perhaps you should begin a thread that explains the symbolism of the Eucharist…?

 

[Anna_Scott]

. .As a fundamental Christian, I believe in the infallibility, inerrancy and divine inspiration of the word of God in it’s entirety. . . .

I agree. We must consider the “entirety” of Holy Scripture.

But we also believe it is what God tells us it is… a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. So saying that it is nothing but a public profession of faith, would not be an accurate biblical description of baptism.

Holy Scripture does not say Baptism is a “picture” of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Scripture says we are buried with Christ by Baptism unto death and raised from the dead by the glory of the Father.

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.

Second, as in the Bible, it is the first step of obedience after salvation.

What is your source for this statement?

There is not one case in the New Testament of a baptism of an infant and so we do not permit the baptizing of infants.

It is very likely that Infants were Baptized with whole households. Is there any Scripture that forbids the Baptism of infants? Is there a Scripture that says one must reach an age of understanding, and if so what is that age and who determines this?

Infants were included in the Old Covenant, In fact, 8-day-old male infants were the ones who were circumcised, and their circumcision brought the women into Covenant with God.

Why would infants be excluded from the New Covenant, especially since the N.T. tells us Baptism is the Circumcision made without hands? This Circumcision made without hands is very important. Remember what the Lord said:

Isaiah 52 **
52 Awake, awake,
put on your strength, O Zion!
Put on your beautiful garments,
O Jerusalem, the holy city;
for the uncircumcised and the unclean
shall enter you no more.**
2 Shake yourself from the dust, rise up,
O captive Jerusalem;
loose the bonds from your neck,
O captive daughter Zion!
3**For thus says the Lord: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money. **

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.**

Wouldn’t this revelation of Baptism as a circumcision made without hands be the perfect place to say infants are excluded from the New Covenant, if that were the case? Yet, there is no such statement.

In fact, the New Covenant is more inclusive than the old.

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.

Nor is anyone baptized in the Bible, who was not first saved, therefore there must be a clear confession of faith before a person is baptized.

That doesn’t hold true, if you consider the N.T. in its entirety, which you agree we must. Where does Holy Scripture say that you must be “saved” before you are Baptized?

If you read all the events that took place in the second chapter of Acts, you will find the question, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter does not say, “Be saved and then be Baptized.” In this particular case, he does not even say, “Believe and be Baptized.” Peter said, “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.**"

Acts 2:**
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles,

“Brothers, what should we do?”

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.
**
Anna

 

[stewstew03]

I agree. We must consider the “entirety” of Holy Scripture.

Holy Scripture does not say Baptism is a “picture” of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Scripture says we are buried with Christ by Baptism unto death and raised from the dead by the glory of the Father.

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.

What is your source for this statement?

It is very likely that Infants were Baptized with whole households. Is there any Scripture that forbids the Baptism of infants? Is there a Scripture that says one must reach an age of understanding, and if so what is that age and who determines this?

Infants were included in the Old Covenant, In fact, 8-day-old male infants were the ones who were circumcised, and their circumcision brought the women into Covenant with God.

Why would infants be excluded from the New Covenant, especially since the N.T. tells us Baptism is the Circumcision made without hands? This Circumcision made without hands is very important. Remember what the Lord said:

Isaiah 52 **
52 Awake, awake,
put on your strength, O Zion!
Put on your beautiful garments,
O Jerusalem, the holy city;
for the uncircumcised and the unclean
shall enter you no more.**
2 Shake yourself from the dust, rise up,
O captive Jerusalem;
loose the bonds from your neck,
O captive daughter Zion!
3**For thus says the Lord: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money. **

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.**

Wouldn’t this revelation of Baptism as a circumcision made without hands be the perfect place to say infants are excluded from the New Covenant, if that were the case? Yet, there is no such statement.

In fact, the New Covenant is more inclusive than the old.

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.

That doesn’t hold true, if you consider the N.T. in its entirety, which you agree we must. Where does Holy Scripture say that you must be “saved” before you are Baptized?

If you read all the events that took place in the second chapter of Acts, you will find the question, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter does not say, “Be saved and then be Baptized.” In this particular case, he does not even say, “Believe and be Baptized.” Peter said, “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.**"

Acts 2:**
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles,

“Brothers, what should we do?”

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.
**
Anna

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Right - the marriage ceremony extends God’s grace such that it prevents fornication.

I just wouldn’t define it as grace. It’s this for that. So it’s law. Otherwise I would agree.

Just to clarify - the “we” in this sentence refers to Baptists, correct?

And of course I’m operating under that assumption. Baptists view baptism as nothing more than a badge to display, or a piece of jewelry to wear.

Some Baptists view it that way, yes. Just like some Catholics who are pro-abortion go to papal masses and receive communion. That is not what the theology teaches.

 

[stewstew03]

I just wouldn’t define it as grace. It’s this for that. So it’s law. Otherwise I would agree.

I’m not sure i understand. So, when Christians get married, they are working under God’s law to please Him?

Some Baptists view it that way, yes. Just like some Catholics who are pro-abortion go to papal masses and receive communion. That is not what the theology teaches.

It’s on the SBC website. Baptism is like jewelry.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I’m not sure i understand. So, when Christians get married, they are working under God’s law to please Him?

It’s a conditional covenant between the couple and God. They make vows to each other and to God. Grace is unconditional.

It’s on the SBC website. Baptism is like jewelry.

It’s making an analogy. I’m not SBC so I won’t answer for their website. Even if it is “like jewelry,” (which i dont agree with) that still wouldn’t entail it being mere symbol or insignificant. The Passover was symbolic of the first Passover. That doesn’t mean it was irrelevant or not to be treated with the utmost reverence and seriousness.

 

[4Squarebaby]

stewstew03:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Squarebaby

An actual ceremony, no but many if not most political jurisdictions require it. If the civil authority says all you need is a pair of signatures and then you introduce as husband and wife you are indeed husband and wife. Actually seeing a wedding like actually seeing a baptism is just a nice thing to do for the rest of the body of the church.

I’m confused by your position. Does your church require a ceremony in order to be considered married? Or can two people simply make a public confession of their commitment to one another? Or is it up to the civil authorities?

A public ceremony, either by the civil authorities or officiated by church elders then no it doesn’t. You can go before your civil authorities and sign their paper work. If you wish to call that a ceremony fine. But it is making that commitment before your community (the signing of the contract) and annoucing it to others which makes you married. If you refuse that step and thus were able to sneak out with less public consequence then it would be considered shacking up. Like being publically baptised by immersion in a ceremony is a nice thing for the rest of the body to see and share in but not seen as “necessary” to be considered a Christian

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[PRmerger]

Like being publically baptised by immersion in a ceremony is a nice thing for the rest of the body to see and share in but not seen as “necessary” to be considered a Christian

But you are saying that a wedding ceremony is “necessary” to be considered a husband and wife, right?

 

[4Squarebaby]

But you are saying that a wedding ceremony is “necessary” to be considered a husband and wife, right?

Define “ceremony” as I said signing the state papers and announcing yourselves as husband and wife may be good enough in communities were only the signing of papers and no affirming oath in front of a civil servant or a deputized clergyman is required

 

[PRmerger]

Define “ceremony” as I said signing the state papers and announcing yourselves as husband and wife may be good enough in communities were only the signing of papers and no affirming oath in front of a civil servant or a deputized clergyman is required

Ceremony, in this context, is anything you have to do to acknowledge you are married, aside from simply telling your main squeeze, “I think I want to be with you forever.”

So are you agreed that, even if a couple declares to each other that they love each other, they are not married until they have a ceremony. Yes?

 

[4Squarebaby]

Ceremony, in this context, is anything you have to do to acknowledge you are married, aside from simply telling your main squeeze, “I think I want to be with you forever.”

So are you agreed that, even if a couple declares to each other that they love each other, they are not married until they have a ceremony. Yes?

Until they proclaim it to the rest of the community, it is not secret and must be open. Most communities however require a signed contract in order to pass property, the 'ceremony"

 

[PRmerger]

Until they proclaim it to the rest of the community, it is not secret and must be open. Most communities however require a signed contract in order to pass property, the 'ceremony"

So why is baptism different? Why is it, “All I need to do to be saved is say that I love Jesus”
and one is “married” to Jesus and just needs a “wedding ring” of baptism to show what has already occurred…

but!

one is not married even if a couple declares to each other that they love each other?

 

[4Squarebaby]

So why is baptism different? Why is it, “All I need to do to be saved is say that I love Jesus”
and one is “married” to Jesus and just needs a “wedding ring” of baptism to show what has already occurred…

but!

one is not married even if a couple declares to each other that they love each other?

I am not the Baptist I am the Evangelic. We do say all one needs is faith and do not “need” immersion to prove it had occured… It however is nice for the rest of the community

 

[PRmerger]

I am not the Baptist I am the Evangelic. We do say all one needs is faith and do not “need” immersion to prove it had occured… It however is nice for the rest of the community

That’s the point, 4Square. You are being inconsistent.

You do not allow a couple to say, “I don’t need any outward sign of our love. All I need to do is say, ‘I love you!’ and we are married!”. No. You say they need to do something else.

But for some reason, you seem to think that regarding one’s relationship with Jesus, you can say, “I don’t need any outward sign of our love. All I need to do is say, ‘I love Jesus’ and I am saved!”.

Why?

 

[4Squarebaby]

That’s the point, 4Square. You are being inconsistent.

You do not allow a couple to say, “I don’t need any outward sign of our love. All I need to do is say, ‘I love you!’ and we are married!”. No. You say they need to do something else.

But for some reason, you seem to think that regarding one’s relationship with Jesus, you can say, “I don’t need any outward sign of our love. All I need to do is say, ‘I love Jesus’ and I am saved!”.

Why?

Marriage has a civil component, salvation does not. The state doesn’t care nor enforces any contract with God over the state of one’s soul.

 

[PRmerger]

Marriage has a civil component, salvation does not. The state doesn’t care nor enforces any contract with God over the state of one’s soul.

So you are saying that if we lived in a society that did not require any civil ceremony, your church would not make a ceremony a requirement?

I think if I were your daughter I would simply say, “Dad, I don’t need to marry my boyfriend. Even you have essentially argued on the CAFs that it’s just not necessary. I feel like I am married to my boyfriend in my heart! And I don’t need any government interference to tell me that I am married! I feel it in my heart that we are husband and wife!”

And then we would move in together without the benefit of any ceremony.

You’d be good with that?