I realize that you were protestant, but how many baptist-type churches are you familiar with? My friends who are baptist take baptism very seriously, which is their argument for not baptizing infants and very young children. When they baptize, it is a sign that the person has “accepted Jesus as their savior” and the baptism is meant to bring the person fully into the church. They look on their actions as being consistent with the early church and mean to do what they understand the first disciples did.
As another poster has said, the “liturgical” denominations (Lutherans, etc.) do see baptism as a sacrament and teach about it very similarly to Catholics.
There are other protestant groups that don’t baptize, or don’t baptize with a trinitarian formula. People from those backgrounds are baptized as part of their entrance into the Church. If a person isn’t sure or doesn’t have records, they are conditionally baptized.
Madam, you are somewhat right. Protestants, especially the non-liturgical ones (who, might I add, are the groups which are growing fastest and are sustaining themselves in crazy numbers) baptize symbolically. You’ve captured it perfectly when you say, “
has 'accepted Jesus as their savior…” Their view on baptism is that it is a symbol, a meaningless public visualization that doesn’t actually do anything, of what
has already happened. That viewpoint/attitude/stance is the intent, and that intent is not in line with what the Church’s is.
The Church teaches that baptism actually DOES something, that it isn’t merely symbolic; although symbolism is part of it, the Church teaches that baptism changes a part of you permanently. Protestants, more specifically non-liturgical Protestants, do not believe that baptism does a single thing, except put on a show, which in turn shapes their intent when baptizing to do just that, make it pretty and nice and that’s it, which invalidates the baptism as a sacrament in their churches from the start.
I realize there are several flavors of the Baptist faith, the largest among them being the Southern Baptists, but they all view baptism in the same way. Whether or not they take it seriously doesn’t mean a single thing. They all view it as a symbol, nothing more, nothing less, and absolutely
not required for salvation. In fact, I’d wager that there are a very sizable group of Protestants who are not baptized, simply for the reason that they are taught that it isn’t required. They do view their actions when baptizing as being in line with what the apostles and early Christian Church did, but only so far as physically, visually, and that’s it.
I do know that liturgical Protestants view baptism as a sacrament or view it in such a way that it otherwise leaves an ineffable mark on the soul and that it brings the person being baptized into the Church of Christ. However, these Protestant denominations are shrinking, and rather rapidly. Most Protestants are not Lutherans or Methodists or Presbyterians or whatever. Most Protestants, at least in North America, are mega-church “GOD LUVZ MIIII!” types. I know from personal experience, and by viewing straightforward polls online. These are the Protestant groups that are growing rapidly, and that most Protestants now identify with. These are the Protestant groups that view baptism as a symbol only.
I just created this thread because I’m quite afraid that the Church’s policy of “checking” baptisms for Protestant converts is severely lacking, totally un-standardized, and, in many cases, lets people get by. Of course, that’s not their fault. It’s the Church’s. When I was in RCIA, the RCIA “director”'s policy of checking Protestant baptisms was to simply request a certificate. Is that sufficient? Maybe to her, but that leaves me wondering. The Church teaches that all must be baptized validly to be part of the Church, and that this is the only way to heaven through Christ. Now, we very well may have several hundred or thousand pseudo-Catholics who, by no fault of their own, think they are baptized, are not, and whose souls are therefore in jeopardy. Might God have mercy on them? I don’t really think it’s worth answering that question, because we all know of one guaranteed, true way to God, and that is through baptism. I don’t understand why it isn’t standard practice to conditionally baptize EVERY convert, as it wouldn’t hurt a thing, and why such a critical step in determining baptism is left, in the majority of cases, to some untrained lay person RCIA director.
