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

[aemcpa]

How interesting. But what harm would be done to such a person being baptized and not capable of comprehending? It would be like a doctor knowing someone is ill and such a person could be given such medication,but since the patient has no clue about the medications, he or she would be denied medical attention.

The Protestants don’t view baptism as medicine, for to them it has no spiritual effect.

 

[Monergistic]

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.

The degree to which it matters varies quite a bit. For some, it is an afterthought and no big deal. For others, it is very important, while still generally remaining separate from soteriological discussion on justification. Mainline denominations obviously come closest to resembling Catholic thought, where they do somehow associate grace with sacraments/ordinances while also affirming sola fide, which does entail a small amount of tension. I’m not saying they are trying to square a circle, I’m just saying there’s tension which requires some nuance.

As you move away from mainline denominations, doctrines of grace are far less closely associated with sacraments/ordinances, if at all. You are left with something that’s a bit simpler, more straightforward, and less nuanced. These people want to know if you’re washed in the blood, not just in the water. Mainline folks probably wouldn’t ask that, as they have a higher view of baptism (albeit a non-regenerative one) and they would be more likely to bypass that in favor if something like “It’s complicated, let me grab something from one of our catechisms.” And upon searching through these mainline catechisms, I don’t believe you’ll find anything that reduces to “Are you washed in the blood, not just in the water.” Again, though, among non-denom/Evangelical people like the ones talked about in the OP, I think it is reasonably fair and accurate to reduce their POV to something along these lines.

I say this as someone who is non-denom/Evangelical. Also, have you been washed in the blood, not just in the water?

 

[Nicea325]

The Protestants don’t view baptism as medicine, for to them it has no spiritual effect.

I know and that blows my mind away when Jesus says quite the opposite in John 3:5

I guess us finite creatures are capable rebuking an Infinite God?

 

[aemcpa]

I say this as someone who is non-denom/Evangelical. Also, have you been washed in the blood, not just in the water?

I say this as someone who worships God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I have; if you want to be as well, the Catholic Church is open to you.

 

[Monergistic]

I guess us finite creatures are capable rebuking an Infinite God?

I think you know that’s an inaccurate description of what anyone intends to do. I think you also know it’s not a particularly healthy way to approach a point of disagreement. The passage you cited is good and relevant, and exploration of the various interpretations and implications concerning Jesus and Nicodemus is valuable and instructive. But this isn’t the way to come at it.

I understand that this is one of the handful of passages that the CC has claimed to interpret infallibly, so I do know you’re not permitted to believe anything different from what you do. But that doesn’t mean you need to do a poor/pejorative job of understanding and explaining a Protestant pov/approach to this passage.

 

[Adamski]

My wife was a full time employee for campus crusade and I spent a lot of time at evangelical churches and bible studies

Baptism is optional all that is needed is a one time confession of Christ the reason they give is the thief on the cross.

Also baptism is commonly preformed many times when ever one fells called to it

I also found most pastors do things based on who are pulling thier financial strings

 

[Nicea325]

I think you know that’s an inaccurate description of what anyone intends to do. I think you also know it’s not a particularly healthy way to approach a point of disagreement. The passage you cited is good and relevant, and exploration of the various interpretations and implications concerning Jesus and Nicodemus is valuable and instructive. But this isn’t the way to come at it.

I understand that this is one of the handful of passages that the** CC has claimed to interpret infallibly, so I do know you’re not permitted to believe anything different from what you do. **But that doesn’t mean you need to do a poor/pejorative job of understanding and explaining a Protestant pov/approach to this passage.

Sorry,did not mean to insult anyone. As for your bolded words? Any Catholic is free to interpret as they please,but at the end of the day, the church has the final interpretation. Either Jesus promised His church the Holy Spirit to guide her or he pulled our legs? No offense, but that is one of the many conflicts in Protestant circles: many interpretations and who has the correct one? Remember…our souls are at stake and someone must have a correct interpretation or we are wandering aimlessly because Jesus’ intended us to second guess what He truly said and meant? Same issue involves the Eucharist.

God Bless

 

[ltwin]

So just as it may be wrong for a catholic convert from an evangelical community to generalize his experience broadly about evangelicalism, it’s just as wrong for you to claim speakership for the entire movement. His experience in it is as valid as yours.

And yet, those of us who are evangelicals are quite familiar with what is commonly believed and what are fringe beliefs. No evangelical that I know of teaches that infant children go to hell. Someone who believed that would quite frankly believe in a God that was a monster.

 

[ltwin]

In fairness, this supposed difficulty is easily resolved by tweaking the phrase “under the age of reason” to say “who have not attained the use of reason”, in which case all those who never attain the use of reason, whether due to age or other limitation, would fall into that category. I don’t want to speak for Itwin, so I will let him say if he accepts my modification.

Yes. If someone is not old enough to reason or was never able to reason in the first place, how can they accept the gospel or even know what the gospel is to begin with? In such situations, we can trust and hope that these people are in God’s care.

 

[ltwin]

How interesting. But what harm would be done to such a person being baptized and not capable of comprehending? It would be like a doctor knowing someone is ill and such a person could be given such medication,but since the patient has no clue about the medications, he or she would be denied medical attention.

Baptism is an expression of faith in Christ. It is an expression ordained of God. It is a burial of the old man (which is why many evangelicals believe it should be done as soon as possible after conversion so the spiritual commitment can be sealed). It follows that we would not baptize anyone unless they already believed.

 

[ltwin]

I also found most pastors do things based on who are pulling thier financial strings

And this is somehow unique to evangelical churches? Please . . .

 

[Nicea325]

Baptism is an expression of faith in Christ. It is an expression ordained of God. It is a burial of the old man (which is why many evangelicals believe it should be done as soon as possible after conversion so the spiritual commitment can be sealed). It follows that we would not baptize anyone unless they already believed.

My brother in Christ, I do believe we are chasing our tails here. Again, how is a unique and totally challenged person ever going to be capable of “expressing” faith in Christ-if they are clueless? Again, at what point in time will they “believe” in order to be baptized? Seems like an either/or dichotomy is being applied here?

 

[Nicea325]

And this is somehow unique to evangelical churches? Please . . .

Ummmm…not neccesarily, but I do hear a lot of the “wealth and prosperity” Gospel among those circles-not all of them of course.

 

[aemcpa]

My brother in Christ, I do believe we are chasing our tails here. Again, how is a unique and totally challenged person ever going to be capable of “expressing” faith in Christ-if they are clueless? Again, at what point in time will they “believe” in order to be baptized? Seems like an either/or dichotomy is being applied here?

He has already said that such a person can’t get baptized.

 

[ltwin]

My brother in Christ, I do believe we are chasing our tails here. Again, how is a unique and totally challenged person ever going to be capable of “expressing” faith in Christ-if they are clueless? Again, at what point in time will they “believe” in order to be baptized? Seems like an either/or dichotomy is being applied here?

They will not be baptized by a church. Since they do not believe, they will not be baptized. This has no bearing on salvation at all.

There are some evangelical churches, like the Church of the Nazarene, that give parents the option of baptizing their infants. Even so, it is still not believed to be regenerative.

 

[aemcpa]

Even so, it is still not believed to be regenerative.

Except by the Apostles and by those who profess the Apostolic faith.

 

[PRmerger]

I understand that this is one of the handful of passages that the CC has claimed to interpret infallibly, so I do know you’re not permitted to believe anything different from what you do

I think this is a poor way of phrasing things.

It’s no more “not permitted” for Catholics to believe any differently than it is for, say, you to be “not permitted to believe anything different from what you do” regarding the Resurrection of Christ. A pantheist may look at a particular passage in the Bible that you believe speaks to the Bodily Resurrection of Christ and tell you, “I know that you’re not permitted to believe anything different from what you do”…

to which all of us Christians respond, “Well, yeah. There is indeed only one way to interpret this. Christ literally rose from the dead.”

Or, to use another example, your phraseology is similar to telling a person: "I know that you’ve been taught that this



is a square, and you’re not permitted to believe that it can’t be a circle."

Well, yeah.

We Catholics like it when the things we proclaim are consonant with the truth.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I think this is a poor way of phrasing things.

It’s no more “not permitted” for Catholics to believe any differently than it is for, say, you to be “not permitted to believe anything different from what you do” regarding the Resurrection of Christ. A pantheist may look at a particular passage in the Bible that you believe speaks to the Bodily Resurrection of Christ and tell you, “I know that you’re not permitted to believe anything different from what you do”…

to which all of us Christians respond, “Well, yeah. There is indeed only one way to interpret this. Christ literally rose from the dead.”

Or, to use another example, your phraseology is similar to telling a person: "I know that you’ve been taught that this

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/38600/38616/Square_38616_sm.gif

is a square, and you’re not permitted to believe that it can’t be a circle."

Well, yeah.

We Catholics like it when the things we proclaim are consonant with the truth.

So Good!!

 

[Nicea325]

They will not be baptized by a church. Since they do not believe, they will not be baptized. This has no bearing on salvation at all.

There are some evangelical churches, like the Church of the Nazarene, that give parents the option of baptizing their infants. Even so, it is still not believed to be regenerative.

Then why bother at all?

So it is an either/or condition?

One is capable of believing and being baptized (YOUR SAFE…says the Umpire)

or…

One is not capable of believing therefore baptism is denied. (YOUR OUT…hit the showers!)

Sorry,but how sad.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Then why bother at all?

So it is an either/or condition?

One is capable of believing and being baptized (YOUR SAFE…says the Umpire)

or…

One is not capable of believing therefore baptism is denied. (YOUR OUT…hit the showers!)

Sorry,but how sad.

When you create your own definitions and know all you know about church history from the Acts of the Apostles only, then people can easily create their easy watered down version that says all that matters is a simple prayer.

Unfortunately, that’s not what Jesus, the Apostles, the Early Church, or frankly even the reformers taught.

It is a cheap form of Christianity catered and evolved around the American Dream.