The Baptist View of Baptism Destroys the Meaning of Baptism

[thecolorsblend]

It can happen that way. That does not mean that Baptism is doctrinally, Scripturally, necessary for salvation.

Absolutely necessary? No.

But it is normative. Exceptions obviously can be made under the right circumstances. But it remains the normative means of salvation as the Church has believed from the beginning.

 

[FireDragon76]

The big one for me as a Lutheran is the whole idea that baptism is a human work that's somehow necessary even though it isn't. At least the Restorationist perspective seems more consistent.

Perhaps Particular Baptists have a unique view of this that I'm missing. They seem more inclined towards something quasi-sacramental.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

The big one for me as a Lutheran is the whole idea that baptism is a human work that's somehow necessary even though it isn't. At least the Restorationist perspective seems more consistent.

Baptism is a necessary work of God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I attempted to ignore that jab. I really don't care about labels, they are only important for descriptions. If they want the name so bad, they can have it.

I intended more humor than a jab. My apologies. I only meant to exonerate my Baptist brothers who like me are full Monergists.

 

[FireDragon76]

One is not born again through baptism, but through the work of the Holy Spirit when, where, and how he pleases. Baptism is only a sign and a seal of the work of the Spirit.

Is baptism a seal of a promise? I am confused by the language "sign and seal".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Baptism is a necessary work of God.

As is obedience by the believer no less a necessary work of God. Or are you talking about a different sort of thing?

 

[Jonaitis]

I intended more humor than a jab. My apologies. I only meant to exonerate my Baptist brothers who like me are full Monergists.

I'm talking about Tree of Life, brother, not you. I am a Reformed Baptist, a Full-Subscriptionist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Is baptism a seal of a promise? I am confused by the language "sign and seal".

"Sign" approximately equals "demonstration by the believer (post-regeneration) that he self-identifies with the family of God" or "by the family of an infant (pre-regeneration) that he is by the authority of the father (of his immediate family) and the church identified with them." It is not a step toward salvation, though it can be. It is not necessary for salvation but it solemnifies the notion. It is a requirement, much as obedience itself is, but not in the same way, in my view --that is, it is a sacrament, not at all the same thing as obedience is a sin not to do. It is a deed, not a lifestyle.

"Seal", is to my mind a little superstitious in that it is giving authority to a ritual. After all, the Bible doesn't teach that salvation is not a sure thing unless the baptism is done. Salvation does not depend on Baptism but on the choice and work of God on the person.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

As is obedience by the believer no less a necessary work of God. Or are you talking about a different sort of thing?

Many Baptists try to claim that the baptism of infants is but a work done by humans. It isn't. It is, rather, a work done by God. I say this as a Baptist who was saved via Baptism as an infant.

 

[Jonaitis]

One is not born again through baptism, but through the work of the Holy Spirit when, where, and how he pleases.

The regular means is through the ordinary use of the word, although I will agree that God can regenerate an individual when and where and how he pleases.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm talking about Tree of Life, brother, not you. I am a Reformed Baptist, a Full-Subscriptionist.

Specifically, the Spirit of God, then, I gather, taking up residence within? (Not sure I follow your meaning).

 

[Pádraigín Ní Saorlaith]

BTW, babies have nothing to repent of, so what sins would they be washed of?

Original sin.

 

[Jonaitis]

Specifically, the Spirit of God, then, I gather, taking up residence within? (Not sure I follow your meaning).

?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Many Baptists try to claim that the baptism of infants is but a work done by humans. It isn't. It is, rather, a work done by God. I say this as a Baptist who was saved via Baptism as an infant.

I say it can include a work by God, or coincide with the work by God. I do not claim that it is not the work of God. But yes, it is (to my mind like the "free will" offering of the OT) an act by the believer, or the family of the infant.

However, and this is one thing I think the modern church badly misunderstands, the work of God is done by God however God sees fit to do it --(my dad used to say, "sometimes, people just come to know the Lord")-- it is not always a sudden "then, that; now, this" sort of thing. Regeneration may not be all the sudden --and who can deny what God does?

 

[Mark Quayle]

?

In other words, you lost me with the tree of life statement.

 

[Jonaitis]

In other words, you lost me with the tree of life statement.

I like ice cream with cereal.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Absolutely necessary? No.

But it is normative. Exceptions obviously can be made under the right circumstances. But it remains the normative means of salvation as the Church has believed from the beginning.

Normative, perhaps. Means of salvation, no, nor do I believe that was the original use of it.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Normative, perhaps. Means of salvation, no, nor do I believe that was the original use of it.

You're entitled to your own opinion. But not your own facts. The doctrines concerning baptism remitting sins and conferring graces goes back a really long way.

"Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, 'Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.' Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls" (Letter of Barnabas 11:1–10 [A.D. 74]).

 

[DamianWarS]

I agree. "Rebaptism" would be sacrilege, in fact.

I've been baptized but I am not Catholic, if I were to become Catholic would my baptism be accepted or would I require a Catholic baptism?

 

[DamianWarS]

Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.

Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.

But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.

The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.

if we have no control over it then may I just get some water and start baptizing or are there some conditions first that need to be considered before a baptism can be called a baptism?