The Baptist View of Baptism Destroys the Meaning of Baptism

[Tree of Life]

Baptism saves because Jesus saves.

If baptism saves, then a person may be saved simply by being baptized. Understanding Christ or believing in him is not necessary.

 

[Albion]

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?

The baptisms of most Christian denominations are accepted by most others. This is one of the most ecumenical events in Christianity.

If you convert to Roman Catholicism, you should not be baptized again (were that even possible) unless there were a serious question about the correctness of (or reality of) the baptismal rite that you previously experienced. A conditional baptism should not be a commonplace thing with converts.

 

[Albion]

If baptism saves, then a person may be saved simply by being baptized. Understanding Christ or believing in him is not necessary.

If it is an infant and he dies promptly, we presume that the answer is yes. But if our presumption is wrong, is he worse off in your view for having been baptized?

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

If baptism saves, then a person may be saved simply by being baptized. Understanding Christ or believing in him is not necessary.

Faith in Christ is given to the baptizee (provided of course that the baptism is in the name of God, Christ and the Spirit).

 

[Albion]

Baptism includes huge benefits.

Very well. Your earlier choice of words led me to believe that you see the sacrament as symbolic only.

 

[DamianWarS]

We are not active participants in our regeneration.

But baptism is a holy ordinance that should be performed by the church and given to believers and their children.

others disagree with the criteria and still are biblically responsible. Second baptism is never the value but rather one baptism. the issue is what is the correct criteria to rebaptize not if rebaptism should happen or not, this is a different question which involves the correct doctrine of baptism. I think we need to allow the two to co-exist without demanding the other come to our side because both in spirit are trying to preserve baptism the best way possible.

 

[Tree of Life]

Very well. Your earlier choice of words led me to believe that you see the sacrament as symbolic only.

No not at all. It is far more than a symbol. But it only benefits those who have faith. Those who do not believe in Christ cannot benefit from the sacraments.

 

[FenderTL5]

Is there any faith group with an argument against being baptized?
iow; a person is a "believer" but decides they'd rather NOT be baptized.

Is there any faith group that's OK with that?

 

[Albion]

Is there any faith group with an argument against being baptized?
iow; a person is a "believer" but decides they'd rather NOT be baptized.

Is there any faith group that's OK with that?

Interestingly enough, that view is not uncommon among Baptists. I know people who fit the bill perfectly--faithful churchgoers, committed believers, steadfast in refusing baptism.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Is there any faith group with an argument against being baptized?
iow; a person is a "believer" but decides they'd rather NOT be baptized.

Is there any faith group that's OK with that?

As I understand it, the Salvation Army denomination has historically not had the sacraments - Baptism and Communion. Simply because they wanted the whole of their efforts to be on evangelism and mission.

 

[Albion]

True. Neither the Salvation Army nor traditional Quakers observe any of the sacraments, not even as ordinances considered to be purely symbolic.

This, however, I consider to be a bit different from the Baptists I referred to before because the ordinance is available to them in any Baptist church yet they decline to be baptized.

 

[DamianWarS]

Not to argue unnecessarily, but there is some difference.

For Catholics, you are referring to a conditional Baptism. For Baptists and their offshoots, it is stipulated that no baptism performed prior to some presumed age of accountability can be valid.

are both not conditionally base? are both not looking at the validity of baptism to determine if an valid baptism is needed? is it not the same spirit? My brother-in-law was baptized as a young teen in an alliance church then became Eastern Orthodox in his 30s and got baptized again, I fail to see the difference in values.

 

[FenderTL5]

Interestingly enough, that view is not uncommon among Baptists. I know people who fit the bill perfectly--faithful churchgoers, committed believers, steadfast in refusing baptism.

As I understand it, the Salvation Army denomination has historically not had the sacraments - Baptism and Communion. Simply because they wanted the whole of their efforts to be on evangelism and mission.

Thank you both.
I know the Baptist church I grew up in would argue against the efficacy of Baptism but they would then in turn call it, "the first act of obedience (or something to that effect)", meaning that one can hardly call themselves a follower of Christ and then reject the very first act of obedience. I can see your point though.
I was unaware of the S.A. view.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

True. Neither the Salvation Army nor traditional Quakers observe any of the sacraments, not even as ordinances considered to be purely symbolic.

This, however, I consider to be a bit different from the Baptists I referred to before because the ordinance is available to them in any Baptist church yet they decline to be baptized.

Hmm... I've never known Baptists to be like that, and I've been a member of two Baptist churches and an adherent in another. The Baptists I've known have been quite dedicated to participating in the ordinances.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I'm sorry I thought that Jesus saves.

I accept your apology.

 

[FireDragon76]

Baptism saves because Jesus saves.

Baptism is eternal life, because through it we sacramentally participate in Christ's own life.

 

[Albion]

are both not conditionally base? are both not looking at the validity of baptism to determine if an valid baptism is needed? [/quote
We do not want to be tripped up by the language here, but I would say that when any church stipulates that NO baptism performed on a child can be valid, there is nothing "conditional" about the one that the church will then administer to the convert.

[quote My brother-in-law was baptized as a young teen in an alliance church then became Eastern Orthodox in his 30s and got baptized again, I fail to see the difference in values.

I would have to know all the circumstances of his case in order to answer that. Basically, Orthodox churches consider baptisms performed in other Christian churches to be valid, whether or not they are by immersion.

 

[Tree of Life]

Baptism is eternal life, because through it we sacramentally participate in Christ's own life.

Through baptism believers enjoy Christ and his benefits. But how can unbelievers benefit from baptism?

 

[Albion]

Hmm... I've never known Baptists to be like that, and I've been a member of two Baptist churches and an adherent in another. The Baptists I've known have been quite dedicated to participating in the ordinances.

I suspect that most Baptist conventions expect members to be baptized for all the reasons you know. But the question asked was if there are any churches in which members refuse baptism, period, and the church is all right with that.

I personally have known a few Baptists who fit the description and had discussions with them about it, but of course there are so many different Baptist conventions, etc. that the answer may depend upon which one they belonged to. One of these people was SBC as I recall, but that is all I can add.

 

[FenderTL5]

I suspect that most Baptist conventions expect members to be baptized for all the reasons you know. But the question asked was if there are any churches in which members refuse baptism, period, and the church is all right with that.

I personally have known a few Baptists who fit the description and had discussions with them about it, but of course there are so many different Baptist conventions, etc. that the answer may depend upon which one they belonged to. One of these people was SBC as I recall, but that is all I can add.

I clicked 'agree' on your post. I can't vouch for your anecdote but have no reason to disbelieve it. The churches in the SBC are considered autonomous (iirc), so that one (or more) congregation(s) could be OK with someone refusing baptism comes as no real surprise.
Other than, I've never heard of it being articulated/published publicly (which is why I asked earlier).