Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

[stewstew03]

…
It is primarily a relationship with another human being that God blesses and makes fruitful…

How does God bless marriage, if not by “purifying” the intimate relationship between a man and a woman?

Getting married prevents the sin, but it does not forgive it.
…

Yes - it prevents fornication, it does not forgive it; but it prevents fornication for the life of the marriage. Marriage, as a gift from God, is a permanent seal against fornication.

 

[4Squarebaby]

As a Christian Hmong, you would accept your daughter moving in with her boyfriend?

I don’t understand. Why would you want her to do this?

There is a difference between want and accept. I would accept her as married because that is how the greater society marries and registers marriages If in the United States she does not go and registers with the state under state authority, who deputize clergy of different faiths even faiths made up for the single purpose of acting as a deputy to the county clerk, she is not married. She is indeed shacking up as marriage has a civil function. And should the Hmong couple, who Laos considers married because the couple moved in together under their community standard, immigrate I would not stand with my arms crossed and say you are not married. They met their community standard and are indeed married. Just as the Californian must get license and certificates from their county clerk and then take an oath before the clerk or a deputy authorized by the state. Other political jurisdictions do not require an oath just a signature on a contract or do not allow special deputies to administer marriages and yes people from those jurisdictions are married also…

 

[PRmerger]

There is a difference between want and accept. I would accept her as married because that is how the greater society marries and registers marriages If in the United States she does not go and registers with the state under state authority, who deputize clergy of different faiths even faiths made up for the single purpose of acting as a deputy to the county clerk, she is not married

Even if she says she is?

Is that similar to a person who says he is saved because he privately accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior, but has not done any formal public declaration of such? He is not really saved?

 

[4Squarebaby]

Even if she says she is?

Is that similar to a person who says he is saved because he privately accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior, but has not done any formal public declaration of such? He is not really saved?

It depends making a public declaration just to be executed is one thing. not making a public declaration for something on the other end of the spectrum is different.

I don’t understand the “even if she says she is?” Do you mean she failed to meet her community’s standard yet says she is married? That would be like calling herself Baptist and refusing a believer’s baptism by immersion

 

[ltwin]

hmmmmm:shrug:

It would be the same at my church. It would not be an issue.

If a former Oneness wanted to preach or teach, they would have to reject unitarian theology. But their baptism would not be an issue unless they wanted to be baptized again.

 

[kirkdickinson]

I was raised Baptist. This thread caught my eye as a hot topic in the emails that go out from this forum. I haven’t had time to read 22 pages of these posts, but have read 6-8 pages worth.

From my Baptist upbringing, we believe that Baptism is obedience to a commandment and we must do this. We do not believe that it is essential for salvation, i.e. “Thief on the Cross”.

The most relevant verse to me is Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Seems like it is a command by Peter to be baptized… and AFTER you “Repent”, that is why I as a Baptist and a believer in the word do not believe in infant baptism. Infants cannot repent. Only someone who has accepted and made a choice can repent.

 

[MartinJordan]

I was raised Baptist. This thread caught my eye as a hot topic in the emails that go out from this forum. I haven’t had time to read 22 pages of these posts, but have read 6-8 pages worth.

From my Baptist upbringing, we believe that Baptism is obedience to a commandment and we must do this. We do not believe that it is essential for salvation, i.e. “Thief on the Cross”.

The most relevant verse to me is Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Seems like it is a command by Peter to be baptized… and AFTER you “Repent”, that is why I as a Baptist and a believer in the word do not believe in infant baptism. Infants cannot repent. Only someone who has accepted and made a choice can repent.

Hi. If this is the case, can you point to me earliest time that Christians baptized infants? Or rather point to me (as a Baptised Catholic from infancy) when infant Baptism was “invented”?

Lastly, are you saying that it was only in the early 17th century people realized upon reading the Bible (which had been compiled back in the 4th Century) that infant Baptism was wrong?

Thanks.

MJ

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

How does God bless marriage, if not by “purifying” the intimate relationship between a man and a woman?

Because God recognizes that the couple has entered into the covenant relationship of marriage as He instituted it. It doesn’t require a divine act of grace. Marriage is part of the created order. It purifies it only in the sense that what was once a non-binding relationship is now covenanted and legitimiate according to how God designed man and woman to relate to each other - as opposed to a perverted or disordered one.

Yes - it prevents fornication, it does not forgive it; but it prevents fornication for the life of the marriage. Marriage, as a gift from God, is a permanent seal against fornication.

No disagreement there.

 

[Porknpie]

And you would be dead wrong. God is present and active in every sacrament, including the sacrament of Matrimony. It is sad that some are so far removed from the Apostolic faith that they do not even recognize sacraments, much less understand them.

And so baptism to you is nothing more than a profession of faith. Not that professing our faith is unimportant, just trying to understand your perspective. Again, you have no understanding of the rnature of a sacrament and the true effect it has on one’s soul.

Steve,

Many have removed the bible from the one faith that produced it and fall into all kinds of error. We can look read about this one faith as the bible was being canonized. Here we can see a Church speaking and understanding that baptism brings Gods grace. No symbolism here. To state that baptism is only symbolic, that is does not confer Gods grace is to misinterpret the Written Word of God and to ignore that apostolic faith that was handed down through the ages.

**“And in what way are we saved? Plainly because we were regenerate through the grace given in our baptism.” **Basil, On the Spirit, 10:26 (A.D. 375).

“This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.” Basil, On the Spirit, 15:35 (A.D. 375).

“It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another’s will when that infant is brought to Baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn…‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was in one Adam.” Augustine, To Boniface, Epistle 98:2 (A.D. 408).

 

[brentAL]

BrentAL,

Just trying to clarify one point you made in case I misunderstood, because everything you posted was scripturally sound.

When you said that “baptism is required for salvation - baptism of the Holy Spirit”, it is my understanding that you mean that salvation does not/cannot happen without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is what happens the moment one is saved. Is that what you are saying, or am I putting words in your “mouth”?
Using your example of the thief on the cross, Jesus said that he would see him in paradise that day (Luke 23:43). So the thief was saved, was therefore subsequently baptized or indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but obviously unable to be baptized with water…Jesus still said that he would join him that very day, meaning that baptism by water is not a work we need to perform to be saved. It is something we do because we ARE saved, not something we do to GET saved.

Thanks!

Yes, Cuddlz24, that was what I was saying.

 

[JustaServant]

Genesis 17
1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2And I will **make my covenant **between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee **in their generations **for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; **Every man child among you shall be circumcised. **
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

23And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

27And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Genesis 21:4
4And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

Colossians 2
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Acts 16:15 (King James Version)

15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Acts 2:

38
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ*** for the forgiveness of your sins***; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39
For the promise is made **to you and to your children **and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

 

[brentAL]

Former Southern Baptist here. It is good to research the beliefs and traditions of other Christians. I also respect the Catholic faith.

Isn’t there a difference between John’s “water” Baptism and the “water” Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Jesus said we must be born of water and spirit: **John3: **5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Anna

In John 3:5, Jesus was saying one must be physically born (water) and spiritually born (believing in Him) to go to Heaven. He was not referring to water baptism. He response was to Nicodemus’ question in v. 4 when he asked about going into the womb (which we all know is full of water) the second time.

V. 6 further makes it clear that Jesus was talking about physical birth when He said water because he clarified by saying , “That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of spirit is spirit.” (KJV). So there are two births: physical birth (water) and spiritual birth (spirit).

The end result Baptists and Catholics are not that far off-- we both believe that all true Christians should be baptized with water when at all possible, and if not their salvation is called into question. But Baptists believe the saving baptism of the Holy Spirit has already occurred, where apparently Catholics believe the act of water baptism brings about baptism of the Holy Spirit. Baptists believe if one rejects water baptism then it is likely the person has not yet received baptism of the Holy Spirit (otherwise why would he reject?) and without baptism of the Holy Spirit the person is not a true Christian.

Brent

 

[aidanbradypop]

It would be the same at my church. It would not be an issue.

If a former Oneness wanted to preach or teach, they would have to reject unitarian theology. But their baptism would not be an issue unless they wanted to be baptized again.

I am glad that they would have to reject unitarian theology in or to give a sermon. I am still confussed as to why your faith would accept their baptism when it was not in the Trinitarian formula. That is how we are told to do it.

What if someone came in and was baptized with no formula? They were immersed in a river with not christ or trinity formula. Would you faith accept that baptism as well?

 

[Anna_Scott]

In John 3:5, Jesus was saying one must be physically born (water) and spiritually born (believing in Him) to go to Heaven. He was not referring to water baptism. He response was to Nicodemus’ question in v. 4 when he asked about going into the womb (which we all know is full of water) the second time.

V. 6 further makes it clear that Jesus was talking about physical birth when He said water because he clarified by saying , “That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of spirit is spirit.” (KJV). So there are two births: physical birth (water) and spiritual birth (spirit). . . .

I understand that is the Baptist conclusion. However, it doesn’t really fit with the passage that continues to be ignored. I’m starting to feel like I’m in the twilight zone.

So, once again:

When Peter instructed the 3,000 to repent and be Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; wasn’t he talking about water Baptism, in which their sins would be forgiven and they would receive 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. 39 **For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” ** 40 And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Isn’t there a difference between John’s “water” Baptism and the “water” Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Why would John’s water Baptism accomplish the forgiveness of sins, and the water Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit accomplish nothing?

Appreciate your comments,
Anna

 

[aidanbradypop]

I understand that is the Baptist conclusion. However, it doesn’t really fit with the passage that continues to be ignored. I’m starting to feel like I’m in the twilight zone.

So, once again:

Anna

You are the Sue Heck of the thread lol

 

[4Squarebaby]

I am glad that they would have to reject unitarian theology in or to give a sermon. I am still confussed as to why your faith would accept their baptism when it was not in the Trinitarian formula. That is how we are told to do it.

What if someone came in and was baptized with no formula? They were immersed in a river with not christ or trinity formula. Would you faith accept that baptism as well?

Again as there is no requirement it is not a matter of accepting, if he asked to be baptized it would be done in a way that both the Catholic and Baptist fellowships will accept. if he doesn’t ask to be baptized he would be treated the same as the new Christian, the Quaker or the Salvationist who decided to join our congregation but had not asked to be baptized.

There is also no rejection of being baptized multiple times so a Catholic or Methodist raised child will be the same as a Muslim or Quaker raised child. Or the Oneness Pentecostal who moved over to a trinity believing church.

Some in the church may have the general Baptist belief of why would he not asked to be baptized again but there are reasons, some new members join believin[SIGN][/SIGN]g that the childhood baptism will do. Some join believing that the outward ceremonial sign to the greater community is also unneccesary

 

[aidanbradypop]

Again as there is no requirement it is not a matter of accepting, if he asked to be baptized it would be done in a way that both the Catholic and Baptist fellowships will accept. if he doesn’t ask to be baptized he would be treated the same as the new Christian, the Quaker or the Salvationist who decided to join our congregation but had not asked to be baptized.

There is also no rejection of being baptized multiple times so a Catholic or Methodist raised child will be the same as a Muslim or Quaker raised child. Or the Oneness Pentecostal who moved over to a trinity believing church.

Some in the church may have the general Baptist belief of why would he not asked to be baptized again but there are reasons, some new members join believin[SIGN][/SIGN]g that the childhood baptism will do. Some join believing that the outward ceremonial sign to the greater community is also unneccesary

Thanks for taking the time to explain it. I find it odd but who cares what I think lol.

Again thanks for explaining.

 

[ltwin]

I am glad that they would have to reject unitarian theology in or to give a sermon. I am still confussed as to why your faith would accept their baptism when it was not in the Trinitarian formula. That is how we are told to do it.

That is how we are told to do it in Matthew 28:19. Trinitarian Pentecostals clearly think that this is the best way to do it. For one, Jesus himself states this formula, and it invokes the Trinity.

However, Oneness Pentecostals use a biblical formula as well. Acts 2:38, “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.’”

Oneness Pentecostals insist that this is the only valid formula. I’m not sure why they prefer this form over the one in Matthew beyond the reason that it avoids them having to explain away the Trinity.

So, from a Pentecostal standpoint, it is not the Oneness baptismal formula that is faulty. It is there understanding of the nature of God. It is there assertion that water baptism is salvific. It is there assertion that speaking in tongues is salvific.

Those are the issues that Pentecostals have with Oneness Pentecostals. Their Jesus only baptism reflects their beliefs, but it doesn’t “invalidate” a baptism. Pentecostals don’t really think in terms of “valid” and “invalid” baptisms.

What if someone came in and was baptized with no formula? They were immersed in a river with not christ or trinity formula. Would you faith accept that baptism as well?

I don’t see that happening. Why would someone use no formula at all? What would be the point of that? No minister is going to baptize someone without doing it in God’s name.

 

[PRmerger]

That is how we are told to do it in Matthew 28:19. Trinitarian Pentecostals clearly think that this is the best way to do it. For one, Jesus himself states this formula, and it invokes the Trinity.

However, Oneness Pentecostals use a biblical formula as well. Acts 2:38, “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.’”

Oneness Pentecostals insist that this is the only valid formula. I’m not sure why they prefer this form over the one in Matthew beyond the reason that it avoids them having to explain away the Trinity.

So, from a Pentecostal standpoint, it is not the Oneness baptismal formula that is faulty. It is there understanding of the nature of God. It is there assertion that water baptism is salvific. It is there assertion that speaking in tongues is salvific.

Those are the issues that Pentecostals have with Oneness Pentecostals. Their Jesus only baptism reflects their beliefs, but it doesn’t “invalidate” a baptism. Pentecostals don’t really think in terms of “valid” and “invalid” baptisms.

Interesting.

Do you support, then, the Oneness Pentecostal’s right to have started their own church/denomination based on this belief? Apparently, to their way of thinking, this doctrine is of such great import that it warranted their starting their own church based on their interpretations of the Bible.

I don’t see that happening. Why would someone use no formula at all? What would be the point of that? No minister is going to baptize someone without doing it in God’s name.

I think, given the plethora of ostensibly Christian beliefs, each citing Scripture verses to support their views, one cannot say with any certainty, “No minister is going to baptize someone without doing it in God’s name.”

I’ve seen and read some pretty bizarre views espoused by Bible-quoting Christians, ltwin.
:sad_yes:

 

[aidanbradypop]

Acts 2:38, “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.’”

So, from a Pentecostal standpoint, it is not the Oneness baptismal formula that is faulty. It is there understanding of the nature of God. It is there assertion that water baptism is salvific. It is there assertion that speaking in tongues is salvific.

Baptism is part of our salvation. You even stated the verse for me.