Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

  • Thread starter Thread starter stewstew03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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:

PR,

I wasn’t saying that in reference to Catholics and others who believe in the Sacraments. I was referring to discussions with those who deny the Sacrament of Baptism.

I see you are into some of the reality TV shows… I hate to admit it, but I watch some of them. I know, “guilty pleasure.” They make me feel OK about being poor. The rich seem to have more problems than I do (and I have a lot. LOL)

Always good to see you on a thread. 🙂 We do go back a bit, don’t we? 😃

Anna
 
Yep all of these argumenst convince me more and more of the validity of infant baptism. 👍
Hi Cajun,

I agree.

Haven’t bumped into you lately. I am also an Anglican in Texas. Your name is making me crave Cajun food. Haven’t had it in awhile. 😃

Anna
 
Hi Cajun,

I agree.

Haven’t bumped into you lately. I am also an Anglican in Texas. Your name is making me crave Cajun food. Haven’t had it in awhile. 😃

Anna
Nothing like eating shrimp gumbo after a baptism
 
PR,

I wasn’t saying that in reference to Catholics and others who believe in the Sacraments. I was referring to discussions with those who deny the Sacrament of Baptism.
Ah. I see, then.
I see you are into some of the reality TV shows… I hate to admit it, but I watch some of them. I know, “guilty pleasure.” They make me feel OK about being poor. The rich seem to have more problems than I do (and I have a lot. LOL)
Actually, I don’t watch those shows typically, although I think I would get hooked if I did!

I just get the GIFs from a website.
Always good to see you on a thread. 🙂 We do go back a bit, don’t we? 😃
Right back at 'cha! 🙂
 
. . .Actually, I don’t watch those shows typically, although I think I would get hooked if I did! . . .
Every time I watch an episode of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, I think why am I watching this? It’s the old “train wreck” analogy. Shouldn’t look, but just cant help it.
 
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 M,

I tried making that point several pages ago, but to no avail… 🤷
. . .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. . . .
 
I wasn’t there obviously but I think it is likely Peter was referring to water baptism. . . .
Brent,

I didn’t see a response to this question (unless I missed it.):
. . . 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?. . .
I’ll pull it out of quotes to make response easier.

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?
 
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).
Brent,

If born of water = flesh; why didn’t Jesus say one must be born of flesh and Spirit, instead of water and Spirit?

Anna
 
Brent,

If born of water = flesh; why didn’t Jesus say one must be born of flesh and Spirit, instead of water and Spirit?

Anna
Because we are all born of flesh and that is why we need the water and Spirit.
 
Brent,

I didn’t see a response to this question (unless I missed it.):

I’ll pull it out of quotes to make response easier.

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?
The difference is the baptism of the spirit-- that is the baptism that counts. Either water is required or not. Catholics say there are exceptions (like the thief on the cross) so they even acknowledge that water is not always required. Thus it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that is the saving baptism because it is the only one that is ALWAYS required.

Of course we could debate all date long when the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs. Baptists believe it is at the point one repents and accepts Jesus as her savior (then the person has a water baptism as a testimony or symbol of the baptism of the Holy Spirit)… Catholics believe it is during a water baptism but if water is not available the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs anyway, I suppose under Catholic doctrine.

As I have said before, Baptists and Catholics are really not as far off on this as one might first think (Baptists all called Baptists for a reason). If one refuses to be (water) baptized, I seriously doubt they have been saved. I think all Christians should be water baptized and I think all Christians will want to be baptized. The end result is close to the same. Baptists and Catholics believe all who want to be with Christ should be baptized when at all possible.

As for why did Jesus in v. 5 not say flesh instead of water, I don’t know. But I think he explained it in v. 6. Let me turn that around, if Jesus was talking about baptism, why did he say in v. 5 “born” of water and the spirit? Why didn’t he say “baptized” by water and spirit? If he did we would not be having this conversation.
 
The difference is the baptism of the spirit-- that is the baptism that counts. Either water is required or not. Catholics say there are exceptions (like the thief on the cross) so they even acknowledge that water is not always required. Thus it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that is the saving baptism because it is the only one that is ALWAYS required.

To say that either water Baptism is required or not, is to attempt to limit the ways in which God chooses to impart Grace. We do not have the right to establish such an “either-or” limitation.
brentAL;10620283:
Of course we could debate all date long when the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs.
That debate is our current topic. 😉
Baptists believe it is at the point one repents and accepts Jesus as her savior (then the person has a water baptism as a testimony or symbol of the baptism of the Holy Spirit)… . .
How do you support this in the context of the whole of Scripture?

Where does the Bible say, “a water baptism as a testimony or symbol of the baptism of the Holy Spirit”?
. . . .As for why did Jesus in v. 5 not say flesh instead of water, I don’t know. But I think he explained it in v. 6. Let me turn that around, if Jesus was talking about baptism, why did he say in v. 5 “born” of water and the spirit? Why didn’t he say “baptized” by water and spirit? If he did we would not be having this conversation.
Yes, you could insist it be that specific. 🙂 However, we know that the forgiveness of sins occurred during a “water” Baptism for 3,000 people. Were they not born of water and of Spirit? They certainly were not born of amniotic fluid and Spirit on that day. The Baptism of the Spirit occurred during Baptism in water. There is no way to get around that.

Anna
 
. . .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?
The difference is the baptism of the spirit-- that is the baptism that counts. .
That doesn’t really answer my question, unless you acknowledge that sins are forgiven in Baptism. John’s Baptisms were done in “water”. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are done in “water.” So, why would the “water” Baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity accomplish nothing but a symbol, while John’s Baptisms were done for the repentance and forgiveness of sins?

Anna
 
That doesn’t really answer my question, unless you acknowledge that sins are forgiven in Baptism. John’s Baptisms were done in “water”. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are done in “water.” So, why would the “water” Baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity accomplish nothing but a symbol, while John’s Baptisms were done for the repentance and forgiveness of sins?

Anna
I’m curious as to how you think John’s baptism forgave sins? I might have missed as I was more conversing with stew and was not following your conversation as closely.
 
Brent,
I didn’t see a response to this post. Maybe I missed it. Please let me know if I did. 🙂
. . .

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.

**Where does Scripture say that Baptism signifies repentance?
**

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”

**

**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. . . .”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top