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

[Nicea325]

And the role of the priest was not the point of my comment. My point was the double standard that some commenters appear to be applying between Catholic and Protestant “worshippers.”

I understand what you are saying. I for one do believe Protestants are worshiping and praising God. Yes…a big break from the ancient liturgies, but I seriously doubt God is not listening to millions of Protestant brothers and sisters.

Peace

 

[Jon_S_1]

Scripture says that we must repent and be baptized. To repent is to change ones mind.

Of course when speaking of adults this is correct, but it in no way discounts that infants can/should be baptized!

 

[Nicea325]

Of course when speaking of adults this is correct, but it in no way discounts that infants can/should be baptized!

Problem is that many non-Catholics make baptism to subjective, while others are excluded (i.e.,infants/young children).

 

[Nicea325]

berk60:
Scripture says that we must repent and be baptized. To repent is to change ones mind.

Yes…if one is capable of repenting. But tell me how a mentally challenged person can repent and be baptized? Does it mean he or she will never be baptized? Or is it a double standard rule?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I understand perfectly what an ideal mass is supposed to be like. I also understand that there is a difference between the ideal and the reality. Unfortunately, some seem to think that all Catholics walk into mass in a perfect state of mind, worshipping our Lord in spirit and in truth, and all Protestants walk into their church service just wanting to be entertained.

I think the focus has been taken somewhat off of the focus of the topic- baptism. I also think that my point of view is being understood a bit wrong, so I would like to apologize for any confusion, as well as make it clear what my experience has been.

I fully believe that many Evangelicals are worshiping God in their services. Whether God is pleased with it, accepts it, works through it, I will leave up to God to say, because I cannot say for certain, but I do know that without the foundation set for me by my Evangelical Churches, I would never have found the Catholic Church.

I fully acknowledge that many Catholics attend mass for the wrong reasons. I have no ignorance that everyone in the catholic church is doing things for the right reasons.

Perhaps my problems are more with the large Mega Churches I have attended verses smaller churches that I do not know as much about, although one Baptist church I attended that was small (about 300 people), seemed to be much more in line with the Gospel than the mega churches (they worshiped, recited the creed, communion every Sunday, very active in the community, multiple preachers instead of one Super Preacher, etc…)

What I saw in my Mega Churches, were churches that started out with good intentions, then became huge. As they became big, the focus turned (unofficially of course) from God and serving the community, to building up the church programs and buildings. When one pastor left, many people left with him and followed that pastor to his new (often bigger) church. Then the church went on a big search to get the next dynamic preacher to keep the seats filled. That was the focus, and unfortunately it is not the right focus.

I guess my problem lies with the Evangelical System that allows this to happen, and is fundamentally broken because of this. I look and see the Catholic Church as huge as it is, and with the problems it has too, and yet I see a system of checks and balance between the parishes, diocese, conferences, vatican, etc… and I more importantly see parishes that are geographically set up to serve that area. They are not set up as simply a place for like minded people to go and hear the greatest preacher.

Hopefully that makes sense, and I am serious in wanting to discuss this without offending anyone, but at the same time I want to speak the truth about my experience as a devout Evangelical in some prominent Evangelical Churches over 30 years.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Problem is that many non-Catholics make baptism to subjective, while others are excluded (i.e.,infants/young children).

I agree, I also hear them saying that one should “repent and be baptized” Yet this is not practiced in Evangelical Churches. Everyone celebrates when a young child maybe 4-7 years old “accepts” Christ and is saved, but then they never baptize them! So to say they believe first Repent then be baptized is not really accurate, since they strive to have the mental/heart conversion experience, but place virtually no emphasis on baptism. My parents never talked to me about baptism. I remember accepting Christ as a first grader at my Christian School, but other than learning, there was never really any talk about confessing sins, baptism, etc…

 

[berk60]

Of course when speaking of adults this is correct, but it in no way discounts that infants can/should be baptized!

It is the repentance and believing in Jesus death as atonement for your sins that brings a person into God’s grace of salvation. That is why the bible says to repent and be baptized.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I wouldn’t use this particular snippet from Irenaeus in apologetics to support infant baptism, since, IIRC, in context Irenaeus isn’t talking about baptism at all. Rather, he’s trying to make a case for his (strange) assertion that Christ died as an older man, in His 40’s or 50’s. Christ sanctified infants by experiencing infancy, in Irenaeus’ thought here.

I think, going by my experience, most Evangelicals believe infants are already going to heaven if they die in infancy, so we don’t believe unbaptised infants are endangered.

Thanks for the advice on that, I appreciate that feedback on how it is received and the context. Would you deny the early church taught infant baptism, even in the first century? Because, if so, there are many more quotes we can go to, and I can share if you’d like them.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It is the repentance and believing in Jesus death as atonement for your sins that brings a person into God’s grace of salvation. That is why the bible says to repent and be baptized.

If that is so, then why doesn’t the Bible say so??? Why add that bit about baptism if it is of no avail?

 

[Jon_S_1]

It is the repentance and believing in Jesus death as atonement for your sins that brings a person into God’s grace of salvation. That is why the bible says to repent and be baptized.

If that is so, then why doesn’t the Bible say so??? Why add that bit about baptism if it is of no avail?

 

[JonNC]

If that is so, then why doesn’t the Bible say so??? Why add that bit about baptism if it is of no avail?

• 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. *

Jon

 

[berk60]

If that is so, then why doesn’t the Bible say so??? Why add that bit about baptism if it is of no avail?

The bible does just simply state it.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

The sinners mind has to change to believe or state repent.

 

[Nicea325]

It is the **repentance and believing **in Jesus death as atonement for your sins that brings a person into God’s grace of salvation. That is why the bible says to repent and be baptized.

Okay, tell me how does a severely- mentally challenged person **repent and believe **in order to be baptized? Does it mean he or she will never be baptized? Or is it a double standard rule?

 

[Nicea325]

The bible does just simply state it.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

The sinners mind has to change to believe or state repent.

Why about the mentally challenged 20 year old? Tell me at what point will he or she change to believe or state repent?

 

[Jon_S_1]

The bible does just simply state it.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

The sinners mind has to change to believe or state repent.

If that is all the Bible said, then I might buy your position, but its not.

How do you answer the verse posted above:

1Peter 3:21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Mark 16:16 “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”

Acts 2:38 And 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.

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

I can go on and on, How can you ignore and dismiss these verses once challenged with them? I understand fully they are not talked about much in most Protestant circles, but once confronted with these, how can you still rely on your one verse, out of context?

 

[Nicea325]

If that is all the Bible said, then I might buy your position, but its not.

How do you answer the verse posted above:

1Peter 3:21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Mark 16:16 “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”

Acts 2:38 And 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.

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

I can go on and on, How can you ignore and dismiss these verses once challenged with them? I understand fully they are not talked about much in most Protestant circles, but once confronted with these, how can you still rely on your one verse, out of context?

If that is all the Bible needs to say,then one has to ask:

Then why are there so many books? uch:

 

[Nicea325]

I agree, I also hear them saying that one should “repent and be baptized” Yet this is not practiced in Evangelical Churches. Everyone celebrates when a young child maybe 4-7 years old “accepts” Christ and is saved, but then they never baptize them! So to say they believe first Repent then be baptized is not really accurate, since they strive to have the mental/heart conversion experience, but place virtually no emphasis on baptism. My parents never talked to me about baptism. I remember accepting Christ as a first grader at my Christian School, but other than learning, there was never really any talk about confessing sins, baptism, etc…

Indeed. The famous “accountability” position held by so many.

 

[ltwin]

Yes…if one is capable of repenting. But tell me how a mentally challenged person can repent and be baptized? Does it mean he or she will never be baptized? Or is it a double standard rule?

It would depend on how mentally challenged someone was. We have had persons with Down’s Syndrome hear the gospel message and have expressed faith in Christ. That family no longer attends our church, but wherever they are now I’m sure that based on their daughter’s confession of faith, she would be baptized.

If someone was mentally incapable of comprehending the gospel and expressing faith in Christ, we would trust that God’s grace was sufficient for those persons, just as we would for infants.

 

[Nicea325]

It would depend on how mentally challenged someone was. We have had persons with Down’s Syndrome hear the gospel message and have expressed faith in Christ. That family no longer attends our church, but wherever they are now I’m sure that based on their daughter’s confession of faith, she would be baptized.

If someone was mentally incapable of comprehending the gospel and expressing faith in Christ, we would trust that God’s grace was sufficient for those persons, just as we would for infants.

Understood,but not all would ever be capable of making such a decision. So I am assuming your community of faith does allow such people to baptism? The problem I encounter are those who insist an intellectual decision must be made to repent and then be baptized. Likewise, it seems many hold a contradiction because they assert one thing,yet not all would meet such a criteria.

God Bless

 

[AbideWithMe]

So at what age does one to be baptized,because they are in danger? No offense,but seems as though certain rules are being applied depending on the individual’s state?

Hey Nicea, there’s no offense in your question.

I need to get some sleep, but here is a link to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Baptism” which I’m going to refer to because it makes an important distinction which may help the discussion: newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

If I have time tomorrow I’ll quote some of it, but for now please scroll down to the “Necessity of Baptism” section. There, it talks about two kinds of necessities-- a “necessity of means”
and a “necessity of precept”. I think it’s accurate to say that Evangelicals believe in the necessity of precept but not the necessity of means. So, to the best of my knowledge, no Evangelicals believe someone would be “in danger” (of hell, I assume you mean), as you asked, solely because they’ve failed to be baptised at any age. But they would be failing in obedience and forfeiting a means of blessing and “confirmation and nourishment”.