Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

  • Thread starter Thread starter stewstew03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the beginning of the reformation one sees babies being baptized and John Calvin who is sort of the forefather of many of the Baptist doctrines believed in original sin. I have French Huguenot ancestors on my mothers side who recorded baptizing week old babies in the French church. Of course over the years when protestant group split from protestant group over their interpretation of the scripture or a sacrament they ended up with many of the beliefs that are held today.
 
Anna_Scott said:
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
Click to expand...
I wasn’t there obviously but I think it is likely Peter was referring to water baptism. I don’t see that passage as meaning water baptism saves you. Baptists would say the same thing. You should repent and be baptized (to signify that you have repented). I am not sure which translation you are using where it has “so your sins…” Most translations have “for the remission of your sins” or something similar. The Greek word for “for” is εἰς which can be translated “for” or “because of”.

Doesn’t it seem contradictory that both Peter and Paul (especially Paul) taught against legalism and rituals (i.e. abstaining for certain meats, Sabbath day, circumcision) but then would require a ritual of water baptism? How is that consistent?
 
kirkdickinson said:
What Bible verse says you could?
Click to expand...
Kirk, you are aware, are you not, that Catholics do not believe that we have to quote any Bible verse to support any ecclesial practice, right?

That’s *your *paradigm.

So if you want to proclaim that parents cannot present their infants for baptism, and you are a “the Bible is my pillar and foundation for my faith” type person (even if the Bible never says that), then *you *have to provide the verse to support your view.

Not me.

It’s like an English-Only! person telling a bilingual person, “But you’re speaking in Spanish. That’s not permissible!”. The bilingual person would say, “Ummm…no. I don’t have to speak English only. That’s your paradigm.”
 
brentAL said:
I wasn’t there obviously but I think it is likely Peter was referring to water baptism. I don’t see that passage as meaning water baptism saves you. Baptists would say the same thing. You should repent and be baptized (to signify that you have repented). I am not sure which translation you are using where it has “so your sins…” Most translations have “for the remission of your sins” or something similar. The Greek word for “for” is εἰς which can be translated “for” or “because of”.

Doesn’t it seem contradictory that both Peter and Paul (especially Paul) taught against legalism and rituals (i.e. abstaining for certain meats, Sabbath day, circumcision) but then would require a ritual of water baptism? How is that consistent?
Click to expand...
I believe Scripture states it clearly. 🤷 But then again, the wording can be changed to suit one’s theology. :eek:
 
kirkdickinson said:
What Bible verse says you could?
Click to expand...
That would be the same ones that show Jewish parents professing the faith for their sons as they are circumcised. If it was efficacious for them (as commanded by God Himself), then why would that change in the New Testament?

The answer is that it didn’t…
 
Church_Militant said:
That would be the same ones that show Jewish parents professing the faith for their sons as they are circumcised. If it was efficacious for them (as commanded by God Himself), then why would that change in the New Testament?

The answer is that it didn’t…
Click to expand...
👍

We also see the Blessed Mother presenting Christ at the Temple. That is another example of a parent standing in for the child.
 
Anna_Scott said:
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
Click to expand...
brentAL said:
I wasn’t there obviously but I think it is likely Peter was referring to water baptism.
Click to expand...
So, then why would you assume that when Jesus said, “no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (John 3:5), water refers to amniotic fluid,? That isn’t consistent with Acts 2.
brentAL said:
I don’t see that passage as meaning water baptism saves you.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying “water Baptism saves you,” as there are many elements of salvation. I’m saying that according to Holy Scripture, our sins are forgiven through Baptism, which is a part of our life long journey of loving and serving God and fellow man, as we live in the hope of the Resurrection.
brentAL said:
Baptists would say the same thing. You should repent and be baptized (to signify that you have repented).
Click to expand...
Where does Scripture say that Baptism signifies repentance?
brentAL said:
I am not sure which translation you are using where it has “so your sins…” Most translations have “for the remission of your sins” or something similar. The Greek word for “for” is εἰς which can be translated “for” or “because of”.
Click to expand...
I use many different translations. Here are a few examples. All speak of Baptism for the forgiveness or remission of sins. All say you will receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:37-39, biblegateway.com

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
**“your sins may be forgiven”
**
American Standard Version (ASV)
**“unto the remission of your sins”

****1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
****“for the remission of sins”

****King James Version (KJV)
****for the remission of sins

**Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
**“for the forgiveness of your sins”

**
brentAL said:
Doesn’t it seem contradictory that both Peter and Paul (especially Paul) taught against legalism and rituals (i.e. abstaining for certain meats, Sabbath day, circumcision) but then would require a ritual of water baptism? How is that consistent?
Click to expand...
How is doing what the N.T. calls us to do “legalism”? Was Peter guilty of “legalistic ritualism,” when he instructed the 3,000 to repent and be Baptized for the forgiveness of sins?

Even the “Sinner’s Prayer” could be called a “legalistic ritual.” In fact, recent debates among Southern Baptists, regarding the way in which the prayer has been used, led to the SBC Resolution of June 2012: AN AFFIRMATION OF A “SINNER’S PRAYER” AS A BIBLICAL EXPRESSION OF REPENTANCE AND FAITH , and included this statement: “. . . .That a “sinner’s prayer” is not an incantation that results in salvation merely by its recitation and should never be manipulatively employed or utilized apart from a clear articulation of the Gospel (Matthew 6:7; 15:7–9); and be it further. . . .”

Anna
 
Church_Militant said:
If infant baptism is wrong then why did the early church do it.
The Case For Infant Baptism and why is it tied in scriptural to circumcision, which was commonly administered to Jewish infant boys?

Furthermore, why is it that so many n-C communities do not even teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation at all, when the New Testament teaches otherwise?
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.
Click to expand...
Church Militant,

Excellent point.

The interesting thing about the Baptist rejection of the Sacraments is that the earliest of the Historic Baptist Documents is from the Waldenses and speaks of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as Sacraments. The post Reformation document from the same group strips the Sacraments of their Graces and reduces them to “ordinances.”

Historic Baptist Documents (Link: historic baptist documents) includes the WALDENSES CONFESSION OF FAITH** of 1120 and 1544** (Link: waldenses confessions of faith.)

The Pre-Reformation Waldenses Confession of 1120 contains fourteen Statements of Faith. Statement 12 defines Sacraments, and Statement 13 acknowledges Baptism (and the Lord’s Supper) as Sacraments.

WALDENSES CONFESSION OF 1120
**12. We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that believers use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither place nor opportunity of observing them.
  1. We acknowledge no sacraments [as of divine appointment] but baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
**___________________________________

The Post-Reformation Confession of 1544 contains twelve Statements of Faith and differs from the Pre-Reformation Confession of 1120: Baptism and The Lord’s Supper are no longer called Sacraments, but Ordinances.

WALDENSES CONFESSION OF 1544
**". . . . .7. We believe that in the ordinance of baptism the water is the visible and external sign, which represents to as that which, by virtue of God’s invisible operation, is within us - namely, the renovation of our minds, and the mortification of our members through [the faith of] Jesus Christ. And by this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation of God’s people, previously professing and declaring our faith and change of life.
  1. We hold that the Lord’s supper is a commemoration of, and thanksgiving for, the benefits which we have received by His sufferings and death - and that it is to be received in faith and love - examining ourselves, that so we may eat of that bread and drink of that cup, as it is written in the Holy Scriptures. . . . . ."**
So what happened?

Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Click to expand...
Great postings, BTW, Anna.

Incidentally, I haven’t been ignoring your posts. It just would be lame for me to keep posting, “Yeah, what Anna said” so I just nod my head in agreement here at home. 🙂

Picture me doing this every time I read what you post:

 
Yep all of these argumenst convince me more and more of the validity of infant baptism. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top