Role of baptism in salvation

cloudyday2 · Jun 29, 2015

There is another more practical purpose of Baptism - membership in a denomination. Many denominations don't fully recognize the baptisms of other denominations. For example, some denominations insist on full immersion, or Trinitarian baptism, or adult baptism. Some denominations like Eastern Orthodox might recognize a convert's baptism, yet they might require an additional ritual such as confirmation or chrismation as a prerequisite for participation in communion.

ViaCrucis · Jun 29, 2015

dms1972 said:
Why "technically by anyone?" - out of interest. Does someone not need to be authorised by Jesus Himself to baptise, or have been baptised themselves? They are going to have to teach this new believer and intercede for them if they baptise them.

I can understand that when an early christian believer said "here is water...what about my being baptised here and now?" to one of the apostles that was all was needed, but it was one of the apostles. I think that is fine, but I don't see anything wrong with a preparation time.

One of the few people I have found writting on the meaning of Baptism in any profound manner has been the late Leanne Payne founder of Pastoral Care Ministries. There of course are sure to be others.

But I found I couldn't talk in the terminology of an elder of one church to discuss it with them, its a difficulty for me because I'd like the water to be blessed. The risk of misunderstanding makes it difficult sometimes to ask and attempt to explain.

It is preferable that an ordained member of the clergy perform a baptism for obvious practical reasons; but it isn't required. Because Baptism is not efficacious because of the person being baptized or because of the person performing the rite. Baptism is efficacious because it is Baptism. Of course Lutherans and Roman Catholics (as examples) disagree on several points here, but where we both would agree is that God is the Actor in Baptism, it is God, in fact, God who baptizes.

Because of this if, in an emergency, a lay Christian or even someone who isn't a Christian at all were to perform a baptism, it would be valid as long as it is a Christian Baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Jun 29, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
There is another more practical purpose of Baptism - membership in a denomination. Many denominations don't fully recognize the baptisms of other denominations. For example, some denominations insist on full immersion, or Trinitarian baptism, or adult baptism. Some denominations like Eastern Orthodox might recognize a convert's baptism, yet they might require an additional ritual such as confirmation or chrismation as a prerequisite for participation in communion.

I know that the Eastern Orthodox are more skeptical of Western baptisms than the other historic churches; though generally among historic sacramental churches a person's baptism is a valid baptism as long as it was, indeed, a Christian baptism.

For example, I was baptized in the Foursquare Church, a Pentecostal denomination, at the age of 17. Now that I'm Lutheran my baptism still counts because even though that church did not hold to a correct understanding of the Sacrament (believing it to only be an outward sign of faith) it was still a Christian Baptism. Episcopalians/Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Roman Catholics would all, likewise, accept my baptism as valid. As they would accept the baptism done in a Baptist church or any number of Evangelical churches. Because Baptism is Baptism. While there would be cases where a baptism would not be accepted, specifically sectarian baptisms such as Mormon baptisms or Oneness Pentecostal baptisms. And then there are cases where the issue is unclear, in which case it becomes a matter of congregational/pastoral discretion and discernment.

But among the largest and most mainstream churches there is, almost always, a mutual recognition of one another's baptism. Which is one of the foundational stepping stones of inter-church ecumenical work.

-CryptoLutheran

dms1972 · Jun 29, 2015

It is preferable that an ordained member of the clergy perform a baptism for obvious practical reasons; but it isn't required. Because Baptism is not efficacious because of the person being baptized or because of the person performing the rite. Baptism is efficacious because it is Baptism. Of course Lutherans and Roman Catholics (as examples) disagree on several points here, but where we both would agree is that God is the Actor in Baptism, it is God, in fact, God who baptizes...

ok thanks

MishSill · Jul 2, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
There is another more practical purpose of Baptism - membership in a denomination. Many denominations don't fully recognize the baptisms of other denominations. For example, some denominations insist on full immersion, or Trinitarian baptism, or adult baptism. Some denominations like Eastern Orthodox might recognize a convert's baptism, yet they might require an additional ritual such as confirmation or chrismation as a prerequisite for participation in communion.

You are absolutely right Cloudy.

I was baptised as a baby in the Catholic church but felt to be baptised as an adult after reading the scriptures.

My current church apparently only allows membership when you are baptised in that church. My baptism was a very genuine one and do not feel the need to become an official member of my church even though I fellowship there and am very welcomed.

MishSill · Jul 2, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
That seems closer to the understanding of early Christians. I have read that Emperor Constantine and many Christians of his era went so far as to delay baptism until their death. They believed that they would be held responsible for every sin AFTER baptism and knew this would be a difficult path.

Interesting concept but if they are puttig off baptism just so they can enjoy sinning, you could hardly say they have a true conversion in the first place.

A person changes their ways after receiving Christ into their lives and that change happens through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I believe a person on their deathbed receiving Christ would go through a pretty rough time than a person dying who is already with the Lord.

faroukfarouk · Jul 3, 2015

Tina W said:
I think baptism is very important, even Jesus the Son of God was baptized, that should tell you something. It must be important if even God Himself got baptized. The only exception I can think of is someone accepting God into their heart on their dying bed with no time to be baptized.

It's a symbol, an important symbol, but it does not in itself save; it's faith in Christ and His work at the Cross for sinners that saves.

NJA · Jul 3, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
In the 1960s my mother studied to be a nurse, and she told me that they were taught how to baptize a patient if requested.

That sounds a bit odd .. I mean Jesus told only his disciples to go into all the World baptising people who had first been taught abd believed his gospel, and even they should first wait at Jerusalem to receive his Spirit (evidenced by speaking in tongues, a miraculous new prayer language).

cloudyday2 said:
Apparently more people from that era felt that baptism was an essential ingredient of salvation. Modern Christianity seems to emphasize the sinner's prayer over baptism.

Jesus will return soon for those who are faithful to what he set up, not those that change things to please men!

cloudyday2 said:
Is this a real change in Christianity? Evangelical churches have grown into the dominant denomination during this time period, so I wondered if that might be a factor in the change I perceive?

There s only 1 gospel so it must be the same as at the start!

cloudyday2 · Jul 4, 2015

NJA said:
That sounds a bit odd .. I mean Jesus told only his disciples to go into all the World baptising people who had first been taught abd believed his gospel, and even they should first wait at Jerusalem to receive his Spirit (evidenced by speaking in tongues, a miraculous new prayer language).

Jesus will return soon for those who are faithful to what he set up, not those that change things to please men!

There s only 1 gospel so it must be the same as at the start!

thanks for the response.

hedrick · Jul 4, 2015

I don’t think the responses so far actually answer the OP’s question. The reason you might want to train nurses to baptize is primarily because Catholics expect it. That hasn’t really changed, though perhaps the Catholic teaching is now a bit differently than it used to be. To my knowledge almost no one outside the Catholic tradition was worried in the 1960’s about what would happen to an infant who died without baptism, nor would that be a common worry today.

Catholic ideas seem to have changed a bit since the 1960’s. There has been no actual doctrinal change, because there’s no official doctrinal answer. However during the medieval period a speculation grew up that infants who die without baptism might end up in “limbo,” a place without punishment, but also without the full vision of God. This was always a speculation, and not official doctrine.

Recently the Catholic tradition has tended to deemphasize limbo. A recent Vatican document on the subject says “The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.” (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html). As far as I can tell, this includes all infants, and not just children of Christians.

Protestants commonly believe that all children of Christians who die in infancy are saved. Many extend this to children of non-christians. I don’t think this has changed since the 1960’s.

So I think the real reason for change is that in the 1960’s this training would have been primarily for the benefit of Catholic families, and Catholic views have changed a bit since the 1960’s. However despite those changes, I believe most Catholics would still welcome having an infant who is in danger of death baptized. Typically this would be done by a Catholic pastor if practical.

cloudyday2 · Jul 5, 2015

hedrick said:
I don’t think the responses so far actually answer the OP’s question. The reason you might want to train nurses to baptize is primarily because Catholics expect it. That hasn’t really changed, though perhaps the Catholic teaching is now a bit differently than it used to be. To my knowledge almost no one outside the Catholic tradition was worried in the 1960’s about what would happen to an infant who died without baptism, nor would that be a common worry today.

Catholic ideas seem to have changed a bit since the 1960’s. There has been no actual doctrinal change, because there’s no official doctrinal answer. However during the medieval period a speculation grew up that infants who die without baptism might end up in “limbo,” a place without punishment, but also without the full vision of God. This was always a speculation, and not official doctrine.

Recently the Catholic tradition has tended to deemphasize limbo. A recent Vatican document on the subject says “The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.” (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html). As far as I can tell, this includes all infants, and not just children of Christians.

Protestants commonly believe that all children of Christians who die in infancy are saved. Many extend this to children of non-christians. I don’t think this has changed since the 1960’s.

So I think the real reason for change is that in the 1960’s this training would have been primarily for the benefit of Catholic families, and Catholic views have changed a bit since the 1960’s. However despite those changes, I believe most Catholics would still welcome having an infant who is in danger of death baptized. Typically this would be done by a Catholic pastor if practical.

Thanks Hedrick, the Catholic issue with unbaptized infants was probably important. When my cousin was facing death as a child, his Catholic grandfather went to the hospital and baptized him, because it was a concern.

FireDragon76 · Jul 9, 2015

The efficacy of Baptism is attached to the words spoken, not to the person performing the act. This goes back all the way to Augustine's theology in the dispute with the Donatists, and has been standard western practice up until the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and most of the other reformers stuck with the ancient understanding from Augustine- Anabaptists did not). Sacraments are not rendered invalid merely because they are performed by an unworthy minister. If they were, then no baptism would be valid.

Some Protestants, especially from the mainline or Wesleyan traditions would still expect baptism of a dying child if it were requested. But I suspect as society has gotten more secular and the influence of mainline Christianity decreased, there is less emphasis on this than the past. As Hedrick noted, probably fewer of us believe that the unbaptized go to hell, but I suspect the reason that we would want it done is because it is a sign of God's love for the family and for the dying.

cloudyday2 · Jul 9, 2015

FireDragon76 said:
The efficacy of Baptism is attached to the words spoken, not to the person performing the act. This goes back all the way to Augustine's theology in the dispute with the Donatists, and has been standard western practice up until the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and most of the other reformers stuck with the ancient understanding from Augustine- Anabaptists did not). Sacraments are not rendered invalid merely because they are performed by an unworthy minister. If they were, then no baptism would be valid.

Some Protestants, especially from the mainline or Wesleyan traditions would still expect baptism of a dying child if it were requested. But I suspect as society has gotten more secular and the influence of mainline Christianity decreased, there is less emphasis on this than the past. As Hedrick noted, probably fewer of us believe that the unbaptized go to hell, but I suspect the reason that we would want it done is because it is a sign of God's love for the family and for the dying.

sounds right to me.

cloudyday2 · Jul 9, 2015

So what about the different types of baptisms? The Bible mentions the baptism of John, the baptism of Jesus, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and many other things. Of course Judaism has the mikveh.

ViaCrucis · Jul 9, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
So what about the different types of baptisms? The Bible mentions the baptism of John, the baptism of Jesus, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and many other things. Of course Judaism has the mikveh.

John's baptism was a kind of tevilah, a Jewish ritual washing traditionally done in a mikveh. Its purpose, as used by John the Baptist, was for repentance, a call to Israel to repent in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit refers to what took place on Pentecost as recorded in Acts ch. 2. Some Christians will argue that "Baptism with the Holy Spirit" refers to a particular experience, for example as a "second blessing" one receives after one has been regenerated. I would still, however, point to the way Scripture uses the term and point to Acts ch. 2. (see also Acts 1:4-5, and Acts 11:15-17).

-CryptoLutheran

cloudyday2 · Jul 9, 2015

ViaCrucis said:
Baptism with the Holy Spirit refers to what took place on Pentecost as recorded in Acts ch. 2. Some Christians will argue that "Baptism with the Holy Spirit" refers to a particular experience, for example as a "second blessing" one receives after one has been regenerated. I would still, however, point to the way Scripture uses the term and point to Acts ch. 2. (see also Acts 1:4-5, and Acts 11:15-17).

So Acts 1 and Acts 11 are two different events (Jewish disciples vs Gentile household).

Do you see this baptism with the Holy Spirit as:
- one time event at Pentecost?
- two time event (one for Jews in Acts 1 and one for Gentiles in Acts 11)?
- one time per believer?
- multiple times per believer?

Also where does the chrism fit into this? Somewhere I read that originally a bishop would lay hands on the person after baptism to anoint with the Holy Spirit, but then they switched to chrism oil to allow the priest to baptize without a bishop. (The first time I heard of chrism was at my Eastern Orthodox baptism. I don't remember it at my Episcopal confirmation, and I also don't remember it at my Four Square church baptism later. Chrism seemed a bit weird, and that is why I'm curious.)

ViaCrucis · Jul 9, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
So Acts 1 and Acts 11 are two different events (Jewish disciples vs Gentile household).

Do you see this baptism with the Holy Spirit as:
- one time event at Pentecost?
- two time event (one for Jews in Acts 1 and one for Gentiles in Acts 11)?
- one time per believer?
- multiple times per believer?

I believe that St. Luke (the traditional author of the Acts of the Apostles) intends to give a thesis when he writes Jesus saying "You will be My witnesses beginning in Jerusalem ... unto the ends of the earth." The narrative of the Acts follows that structure and has that unique Pentecost moment as a kind of stepping stone along the way.

It begins on Pentecost in Jerusalem, which empowers the apostles to go out and apostle, to preach the word, and we see them preaching throughout Judea. Next we read about it moving into Samaria, with the Samaritans receiving the Gospel, being baptized, and then there is an outpouring of the Spirit. And finally it happens in the household of Cornelius, with Gentiles--the nations. The "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is then a uniquely historical act of God demonstrating His call and acceptance beginning with Jews in Jerusalem, the Samaritans (thus restoring peace between Jews and Samaritans) and finally with the Gentiles.

These are specific, uniquely historical moments demonstrating the outpouring of the Spirit on "all flesh". There is no indication in Scripture that it is to happen ever again, or that it should happen to any given individual beyond those who, in those moments, were there. As such the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is an historical event (or events).

Also where does the chrism fit into this? Somewhere I read that originally a bishop would lay hands on the person after baptism to anoint with the Holy Spirit, but then they switched to chrism oil to allow the priest to baptize without a bishop. (The first time I heard of chrism was at my Eastern Orthodox baptism. I don't remember it at my Episcopal confirmation, and I also don't remember it at my Four Square church baptism later. Chrism seemed a bit weird, and that is why I'm curious.)

Chrismation, laying on of hands and anointing with oil, is still a normative part of what is called Christian Initiation. In the West Chrismation evolved to become Confirmation, in Protestant churches the use of chrism oil may or may not be used in Confirmation, but is used as part of Baptism--and thus Chrismation remains standard baptismal practice. The purpose of Chrismation, historically, is the seal of the Holy Spirit--and its tie to Baptism has to do with Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, all of you, for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Other examples would be in Acts 19 where St. Paul comes across some followers (presumably of John the Baptist) and they say they only knew John's baptism, and after Paul explains that John's baptism was in preparation of the coming Messiah, Jesus, they receive Christian baptism and the laying on of hands.

As such laying on of hands/anointing with oil--chrismation--has historically been an essential element of Christian baptism. In the West, due to liturgical changes, chrismation could be delayed and it eventually become Confirmation. In the Reformation while Confirmation was not accepted by the Protestant churches as a Sacrament in its own right, it was retained as a means of good order; but what has been done is the laying on of hands/anointing with oil being done as part of the baptismal rite. As such Baptism and Chrismation are, together, regarded as Baptism and happen at the same time.

For example as soon as the child is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit chrism is applied to the child's forehead along with the laying on of hands. That would be standard practice, at least in my church.

Scouring Youtube, here's an example of a pretty standard baptism in a Lutheran church. Fast forward to the five minute mark.

Baptism, laying on of hands, anointing with chrism oil.

-CryptoLutheran

cloudyday2 · Jul 10, 2015

Thanks, I suppose they used chrism in the Episcopal church, but I was an infant at baptism and probably just forgot about it at confirmation.

Chrism seems to be a proxy for a bishop laying on hands to seal the new Christian with the Holy Spirit. The association of oil and the Holy Spirit goes back to Samuel anointing David. It seems that the Catholic and Orthodox consider chrism to be a sacrament whereas Anglicans and Lutherans consider it to be optional and symbolic? Apparently the more Charismatic and Pentecostal churches lay on hands, because they do not believe in apostolic succession of the Holy Spirit from the apostles through the bishops? (Thus they do not face the logistic difficulties of transporting the bishop to every baptism for the chrismation step?)

lupusFati · Jul 11, 2015

For one, I'm against infantile baptism. And yes, I'm not a Christian *right now*, but I've been raised around it for more than 20 years. So I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Baptism isn't necessary for salvation. It is something you do after you've taken that step. It's more a confirmation of your faith than an act of salvation. After all, if you could save yourselves using a bit of water, who would ever need your god?

Two, infants and very young children cannot make that conscious decision. Therefore, baptising them is an effort in futility, because it does literally nothing for them. They're not making any commitment, and you can't make that commitment FOR them.

Also, I have never read anywhere in the bible that baptism is what saves you. It's always been focused on "Christ".

cloudyday2 · Jul 11, 2015

lupusFati said:
For one, I'm against infantile baptism. And yes, I'm not a Christian *right now*, but I've been raised around it for more than 20 years. So I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Baptism isn't necessary for salvation. It is something you do after you've taken that step. It's more a confirmation of your faith than an act of salvation. After all, if you could save yourselves using a bit of water, who would ever need your god?

Two, infants and very young children cannot make that conscious decision. Therefore, baptising them is an effort in futility, because it does literally nothing for them. They're not making any commitment, and you can't make that commitment FOR them.

Also, I have never read anywhere in the bible that baptism is what saves you. It's always been focused on "Christ".

Good points.

Role of baptism in salvation

Generic Theist

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Fading curmudgeon

Senior Member

Generic Theist

Senior Veteran

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Generic Theist

Confessional Lutheran

Generic Theist

Confessional Lutheran

Generic Theist

Bigby, Reid, and Z

Generic Theist

Similar threads