For those who were or are Evangelical. Is being saved more important than Baptism?

[Dave_Noonan]

I ask this because when I was in college a few years ago, I roomed with 3 evangelical/nondenominational roommates. One of them was a convert from Lutheranism (though he never went to church other than weddings and such). Anyway he and most other people who became Christian (All were members of churches affiliated with Campus Crusade), seemed to focus more on being saved and talked about how that was kind of like a spiritual birthday. Baptism seemed to be an afterthought. My friend even got baptized and I told him that it was awesome, but he said it wasn’t that big of a deal.

So in evangelical circles, does baptism matter? Or can one just be saved and that is enough. My friend and I even had a discussion about this and he told me how it was still possible one could be a christian without baptism (Ironic because I thought it was mentioned in the bible that one had to be baptized to be a part of the church, and obviously he was part of a very bible oriented church) as long as they were saved.

Yes, I would say most evangelicals think this way. Much of this is from the influence of the Radical Reformation (Zwingli, et al.). Protestants from other branches of the Reformation, such as Lutheran or Reform Christians, would generally not agree.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes Christ was Baptized as an example to us and to make it clear how ESSENTIAL baptism is for our salvation. Jesus was without sin and did not “need” baptism. also since he is God he did not need a profession of faith in himself. He is God!

God is God and by His very nature, lacks nothing or is in need of something.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Being evangelical for almost 20 years (although it is quite hard to truly define evangelical as there is a spectrum) the answer would be being saved is a one off acceptance of Jesus into the heart by saying the sinners prayer although I don’t know where that came from.

Baptism was a public confession of faith with no intrinsic value. It is an act that was encouraged, but not a basis for salvation.

Most evangelical assemblies do not count baptism as a sacrament, in fact they don’t BELIEVE in sacraments but rather in ORDINANCES. They baptize and have communion and matrimony and other things because it is commanded in the Bible but these things (with the possible exception of matrimony) do not achieve anything but rather are just symbolic. The real thing, as they believe, is the public profession of faith in Jesus as personal savior.

 

[manualman]

Many to most evangelicals have a deep distrust of the idea that anything with an external manifestation can have ANY innate spiritual value or effect. They misread St. Paul’s denunciation of reliance on “works of the law” as meaning anything with a physical manifestation. But works of the law refers to the OT ordinances of Jewish practice, not a blanket statement covering all of life’s actions.

Because of this, they ended up fundamentally altering christianity from the way it had been understood from the beginning by discarding the very idea of sacraments (which, of course, include an OUTWARD manifestation.). It doesn’t appear to bother them that there never was a version of christianity that did not believe in sacraments prior to the 1500’s…

 

[dronald]

I don’t see the problem here?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Luke’s account in the Acts of all the Apostles, James, Peter, John, Jude and Jesus never made it clear that one must be Baptized as a baby. Repent and be Baptized, I have done that.

Explain where I’m wrong and why Catholics are so passionate and insulting about the idea that one should get Baptized when they understand why they’re being Baptized? (At least, that’s what I’ve gathered from reading so far.)

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see the problem here?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Luke’s account in the Acts of all the Apostles, James, Peter, John, Jude and Jesus never made it clear that one must be Baptized as a baby. Repent and be Baptized, I have done that.

Explain where I’m wrong and why Catholics are so passionate and insulting about the idea that one should get Baptized when they understand why they’re being Baptized? (At least, that’s what I’ve gathered from reading so far.)

Where you are wrong is to extract your doctrine from the pages of a book.

That is a man-made paradigm.

We do not distill our doctrines from the pages of a book, no matter how holy.

Rather, we listen to the Faith, given once for all, to the saints and use the Scriptures to affirm that which the Tradition has already proclaimed.

 

[manualman]

I don’t see the problem here?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Luke’s account in the Acts of all the Apostles, James, Peter, John, Jude and Jesus never made it clear that one must be Baptized as a baby. Repent and be Baptized, I have done that.

Explain where I’m wrong and why Catholics are so passionate and insulting about the idea that one should get Baptized when they understand why they’re being Baptized? (At least, that’s what I’ve gathered from reading so far.)

The objection catholics have is to the protestant idea that baptism is merely an ordinance with no innate spiritual consequences. If you’ve been baptized with water in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, catholics understand you to be really baptized. No argument or insults.

What we object to is the way some protestants criticize us (and endanger their own children) for baptizing babies. Witholding the Grace of baptism is a sad disservice to one’s babies (especially in ages past when so many died in infancy). Christ offered us this Grace and makes it available to all. Why put Him on hold for several years?

 

[dronald]

The objection catholics have is to the protestant idea that baptism is merely an ordinance with no innate spiritual consequences. If you’ve been baptized with water in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, catholics understand you to be really baptized. No argument or insults.

That’s wonderful! I never knew this was an actual Catholic belief that all Protestants who have been Baptized outside of the CC in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have indeed been Baptized all the same.

What we object to is the way some protestants criticize us (and endanger their own children) for baptizing babies. Witholding the Grace of baptism is a sad disservice to one’s babies (especially in ages past when so many died in infancy). Christ offered us this Grace and makes it available to all. Why put Him on hold for several years?

Not being Baptized is in direct disobedience to God’s command. I don’t know any Protestant that denies this, and therefore if a Protestant has not been Baptized he must do so right away. Our argument is that we will not be damned (nor will unbaptized babies) because we didn’t get Baptized. This, once again evident by those who die on their deathbeds and aborted babies. Let us not forget the theif on the cross.

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t see the problem here?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Luke’s account in the Acts of all the Apostles, James, Peter, John, Jude and Jesus never made it clear that one must be Baptized as a baby. Repent and be Baptized, I have done that.

Explain where I’m wrong and why Catholics are so passionate and insulting about the idea that one should get Baptized when they understand why they’re being Baptized? (At least, that’s what I’ve gathered from reading so far.)

My fellow Christian,

I do not think anyone here is trying to insult you or your faith community. Yes…a Catholic can make an intellectual decision to be baptized, if he or she was never baptized. However, we as Catholics and Orthodoxs usually receive baptism at infancy or a very young age.

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

That’s wonderful! I never knew this was an actual Catholic belief that all Protestants who have been Baptized outside of the CC in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have indeed been Baptized all the same.

Not being Baptized is in direct disobedience to God’s command. I don’t know any Protestant that denies this, and therefore if a Protestant has not been Baptized he must do so right away. Our argument is that we will not be damned (nor will unbaptized babies) because we didn’t get Baptized. This, once again evident by those who die on their deathbeds and aborted babies. Let us not forget the theif on the cross.

And if I am correct, the CC has never ever stated who is in Hell, let alone unbaptized infants or children.

 

[JonNC]

The objection catholics have is to the protestant idea that baptism is merely an ordinance with no innate spiritual consequences. If you’ve been baptized with water in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, catholics understand you to be really baptized. No argument or insults.

What we object to is the way some protestants criticize us (and endanger their own children) for baptizing babies. Witholding the Grace of baptism is a sad disservice to one’s babies (especially in ages past when so many died in infancy). Christ offered us this Grace and makes it available to all. Why put Him on hold for several years?

The bolded is, honestly, the most concerning to me.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

The Great Commission tells is to make disciples of all nations. How do we do that? He tells us to Baptize, and then to teach. Clearly, babies are part of nations, who are to be Baptized and taught.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

That’s wonderful! I never knew this was an actual Catholic belief that all Protestants who have been Baptized outside of the CC in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have indeed been Baptized all the same.

Not being Baptized is in direct disobedience to God’s command. I don’t know any Protestant that denies this, and therefore if a Protestant has not been Baptized he must do so right away. Our argument is that we will not be damned (nor will unbaptized babies) because we didn’t get Baptized. This, once again evident by those who die on their deathbeds and aborted babies. Let us not forget the theif on the cross.

There is a big difference between knowing you should be baptized and not being baptized snd the thief on the cross.

God will not withhold his grace from those who desire him and of no fault of their own cannot be baptized. We call this baptism by desire or in case of martyrdom baptism by blood.

However if you just choose not to be baptized you are rejecting God’s commands and Christ’s example.

I have an Evangelical friend, pastors daughter who was never baptized. She saw no need and Evangelical theology affirms that position. Finally at 35 years old she got baptized thank God, although her reasoning was simply she felt weird not being baptized. Maybe that was The Holy Spirit.

 

[dronald]

There is a big difference between knowing you should be baptized and not being baptized snd the thief on the cross.

God will not withhold his grace from those who desire him and of no fault of their own cannot be baptized. We call this baptism by desire or in case of martyrdom baptism by blood.

However if you just choose not to be baptized you are rejecting God’s commands and Christ’s example.

I have an Evangelical friend, pastors daughter who was never baptized. She saw no need and Evangelical theology affirms that position. Finally at 35 years old she got baptized thank God, although her reasoning was simply she felt weird not being baptized. Maybe that was The Holy Spirit.

It certainly would make one feel weird to directly disobey God for a long period of time. As my first answer went, I can imagine God would want to question one if they went their entire life disobeying Him.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It certainly would make one feel weird to directly disobey God for a long period of time. As my first answer went, I can imagine God would want to question one if they went their entire life disobeying Him.

The problem is most Evangelicals have bought into a completely unbiblical and false man made tradition of basically baptism being almost worthless. The little worth it has is the equivalent of standing at a microphone and professing Christ.

My friend did not/does not feel she was disobeying God.

Of course even a cursory search through the New Testament proves this theory wrong.

In my 30 years as an Evangelical I heard thousands of sermons on Paul’s letters and faith alone, and other feel good stuff.

How many times did we study The biblical passages on baptism. Zero.

When we did come across a passage like Mark 16:16 it was secondary to something else in the section so we just read right over it.

 

[Faithful_One1]

During the Sacrament of Confirmation the seal baptism is Confirmed. Catholics then enter adulthood and continue living through the teachings of our lord and savior Jesus Christ.

 

[Darryl_B]

Most evangelical assemblies do not count baptism as a sacrament, in fact they don’t BELIEVE in sacraments but rather in ORDINANCES. They baptize and have communion and matrimony and other things because it is commanded in the Bible but these things (with the possible exception of matrimony) do not achieve anything but rather are just symbolic. The real thing, as they believe, is the public profession of faith in Jesus as personal savior.

Yes generally they are regarded as ordinances though the latest Statement Of Faith (we changed pastors) to come out of the Evangelical Church I was going to for 20 years has I believe

In the Sacraments of the Lord’s Supper and divine healing through faith in the name of Jesus Christ, as included in the atonement, baptism by immersion and in the Holy Spirit with evidence of signs following, and the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit as available to all that believe.

Although I couldn’t submit to the statement of faith because of this

and millennia reign on earth

 

[Darryl_B]

The problem is most Evangelicals have bought into a completely unbiblical and false man made tradition of basically baptism being almost worthless. The little worth it has is the equivalent of standing at a microphone and professing Christ.

My friend did not/does not feel she was disobeying God.

Of course even a cursory search through the New Testament proves this theory wrong.

In my 30 years as an Evangelical I heard thousands of sermons on Paul’s letters and faith alone, and other feel good stuff.

How many times did we study The biblical passages on baptism. Zero.

When we did come across a passage like Mark 16:16 it was secondary to something else in the section so we just read right over it.

Paul is the new Peter. I was enjoying my evangelical church until I went to the 9:00 Catholic (never been in a Catholic church before) and then straight to the 11:00 evangelical and I suddenly realized I was being entertained, everything I had valued about my evangelical church had disappeared.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Paul is the new Peter. I was enjoying my evangelical church until I went to the 9:00 Catholic (never been in a Catholic church before) and then straight to the 11:00 evangelical and I suddenly realized I was being entertained, everything I had valued about my evangelical church had disappeared.

I realized the same thing.

I went to Catholic mass one day, and was humbled and struck at what true worship was . It was all about God and humbling ourselves and realigning our hearts with God,

I went to my Evangelical Church after that. Saw the rock band put on a show, some curtesie comedy video to intro the sermon and then a dynamic speaker. It was all about entertaining the audience not worshiping God.

Case in point: when do Evangelical Churches close/die? When the pastor they worship moves on and an equally entertaining replacement can’t be found.

I quickly saw how the Evangelical Church was a social club and entertainment venue not a house of worship.

Worshiping God in the mass is ssssooooooo refreshing after all that!

 

[Darryl_B]

I realized the same thing.

I went to Catholic mass one day, and was humbled and struck at what true worship was . It was all about God and humbling ourselves and realigning our hearts with God,

I went to my Evangelical Church after that. Saw the rock band put on a show, some curtesie comedy video to intro the sermon and then a dynamic speaker. It was all about entertaining the audience not worshiping God.

Case in point: when do Evangelical Churches close/die? When the pastor they worship moves on and an equally entertaining replacement can’t be found.

I quickly saw how the Evangelical Church was a social club and entertainment venue not a house of worship.

Worshiping God in the mass is ssssooooooo refreshing after all that!

That is exactly what I experienced at the 9:00 Catholic service, I even felt I had come home. Thank you for sharing that with me.

 

[WildCatholic]

The problem is most Evangelicals have bought into a completely unbiblical and false man made tradition of basically baptism being almost worthless. The little worth it has is the equivalent of standing at a microphone and professing Christ.

My friend did not/does not feel she was disobeying God.

Of course even a cursory search through the New Testament proves this theory wrong.

In my 30 years as an Evangelical I heard thousands of sermons on Paul’s letters and faith alone, and other feel good stuff.

How many times did we study The biblical passages on baptism. Zero.

When we did come across a passage like Mark 16:16 it was secondary to something else in the section so we just read right over it.

This answer especially speaks to me. I honestly don’t think they ever talked about baptism in any materials from Cru that I ever read, at least not in detail. Part of this I wonder is so that people can be saved without making much of a commitment. I found a lot of times it seemed as if non denominational and evangelical groups weren’t very strict. Not that they were huge sinners or anything, but it seemed to be more about heart, even when they disobeyed God. My friend who I mentioned in the original post was like this. While he got baptized, he never saw the need to go to Church too often. He went to Cru, but I I always kind of felt he was hypocritical for saying he was a bible believer, but didn’t go to Sunday service.

To me, it seems as if Protestantism in a lot of cases is feel good, cumbayah type stuff. While groups like Cru had good music and worship and most kids were committed, I always wondered how most of those who believed would keep it up when things got really tough. I also got a sense a lot of them were spiritual wanderers. A lot of them had parents who werent really involved in church, or if they were it wasn’t a part of their lives. So these young adults would join a church or group because it was exciting or they had friends or they had fun things at church. But eventually I wonder if someday they will just wander again.

Just my 2 cents