Baptism's meaning

[Mateo el Feo]

[color=red][i]Disclaimer: I don't mean to talk behind the backs of protestants. Catholics and non-Catholics would be welcome to comment.[/i][/color]

Some non-Catholics question the validity of the Catholic baptismal rite when we don't totally immerse those who are receiving the sacrament. I've been to Baptist churches (for example) and seen tanks for Baptism; and I expect that other denominations use similar methods.

Straightforward so far, right? OK, here's where I get confused. To my knowledge, protestants in general view the rite of Baptism as symbolic (i.e. not efficacious). It's a mere symbol of an interior event. Otherwise, one could be saved by a work (the water Baptism), according to this viewpoint.

Ummmm...so if it's all just symbolic, why would anyone care about the form (pouring water vs. immersion, etc)?

I suspect that there is no single non-Catholic position. I really don't have a good handle on the following:

1) Do any protestants believe that Baptism is efficacious?
2) How does one reconcile the insistance on a particular form (i.e. immersion) if it's all just a symbol?
3) What is the difference between a symbol that is judged to be valid versus one that is judged to be invalid?

God bless!

[homeschoolmom]

Uh....

From my experience, low churches (Baptist, etc) see it as a symbol. But believing that it is a symbol and believing that the biblical method of baptism was immersion, that's the method used. And not that it matters, but I believe that most Baptists would consider a Catholic (or other) baptism of an older child (5ish or older) or adult as "valid" since that person (presumbably) made the choice to be baptized. I don't think that most churches would quibble over it's being immersion or not-- though some would, to be sure.

It boggles my mind now why Baptist churches *require* rebaptism for those baptized as infants for membership in their churches. If it's merely a symbol of an inward experience, why isn't profession of the inward experience enough? Wouldn't professing that you agree with your baptismal vows be enough? nopers...

[Brother Adam]

Baptists ALMOST universally agree that baptism is only a symbol, but should be participated in by all born again believers as part of their membership to a local un-organized congregation of baptized believers.

The Baptism has no other effect than than it is an outward symbol of a persons moment of salvation when they intellectually accepted the belief that Jesus Christ is their own personal Savior from their sin and in some cases, original sin.

Baptism is meant to be a public witness, done by complete immersion, after the age of accountability. It should be done within a years time after salvation.

Source: Basic Theology by Charles Ryrie

[ICTHUS]

[quote]1)  Do any protestants believe that Baptism is efficacious?[/quote] Efficacious for what, exactly? As we read in the Westminster Confession of Faith...

(Chapter XXVIII, Of Baptism, i & vi)

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] [b]but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7][/b] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]

Thus, one might say that orthodox, confessional Reformed Christians believe in a [i]kind[/i] of baptismal regeneration where the grace of baptism is not necessarily tied into the time wherein it is administered, but may be received later, or not at all, according to God's own good pleasure in Election (or in the words of the confession "according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time")

[quote]2)  How does one reconcile the insistance on a particular form (i.e. immersion) if it's all just a symbol?[/quote] There is Biblical basis for all of them - since baptism symbolizes Christ's blood being sprinkled, sprinkling is acceptable. Since it symbolizes being buried with Him, immersion is acceptable (and, in my opinion, preferable). Since it symbolises washing, pouring is acceptable..

[quote]3)  What is the difference between a symbol that is judged to be valid versus one that is judged to be invalid?[/quote] I'm not sure I understand the question. Care to elaborate?

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Actually babies and small children are more spiritually advanced than their parents are (their souls have been close to GOD in the spiritual realm before parents receive them)[/quote] Actually, that's not true. We are sinful before we were even born (Psalm 51:5), dead in our sins and transgressions (Ephesians 2:1-6 cf. Ezekiel 37) and wholly and completely spiritually depraved even from birth.

[cmotherofpirl]

Babies haven't sinned or transgressed anything. THey are not even capable of sin until around the age of reason. [7 or so]

Edited October 17, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[foundsheep]

Psalms
Chapter 51
1
1 For the leader. A psalm of David,
2
when Nathan the prophet came to him after his affair with Bathsheba.
3
Have mercy on me, God, in your goodness; in your abundant compassion blot out my offense.
4
Wash away all my guilt; from my sin cleanse me.
5
For I know my offense; my sin is always before me.
6
Against you alone have I sinned; I have done such evil in your sight That you are just in your sentence, blameless when you condemn.
7
2 True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me.

[color=blue]2 [7] A sinner, even as my mother conceived me: literally, "In iniquity was I conceived," an instance of hyperbole: at no time was the psalmist ever without sin. Cf Psalm 88:15, "I am mortally afflicted since youth," i.e., I have always been afflicted.[/color] [color=red]The verse does not imply that the sexual act of conception is sinful.[/color]

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Oct 17 2004, 02:25 PM'] Babies haven't sinned or transgressed anything. THey are not even capable of sin until around the age of reason. [7 or so] [/quote]
Says the Church of Rome, yes. Not the Word of God - in fact, it stands in direct opposition to Rome on this and other issues.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='foundsheep' date='Oct 17 2004, 02:31 PM'] [color=blue]2 [7] A sinner, even as my mother conceived me: literally, "In iniquity was I conceived," an instance of hyperbole: at no time was the psalmist ever without sin. Cf Psalm 88:15, "I am mortally afflicted since youth," i.e., I have always been afflicted.[/color] [color=red]The verse does not imply that the sexual act of conception is sinful.[/color] [/quote]
Of course. I never said that the act of conception is sinful, I said that we are sinful from birth, with all the effects of sin (totally depraved spiritual death)

[foundsheep]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 17 2004, 01:17 PM'] Actually, that's not true. We are sinful before we were even born (Psalm 51:5), dead in our sins and transgressions (Ephesians 2:1-6 cf. Ezekiel 37) and wholly and completely spiritually depraved even from birth. [/quote]
Looking at those verses Im not finding anything that proves what you have written.

[foundsheep]

Im just trying to understand your point ICTHUS.

[foundsheep]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Oct 16 2004, 12:33 PM'] [/QUOTE]Alugi writes: errr. yeah, i know sarcasm prolly isn't the most charitable thing, [/QUOTE]

No it isn’t. Ask anyone who REMEMBERS my last post on this topic.


Personally I believe that you can share beliefs with a child but to force or shove beliefs on a child through a contract of baptism without the proper understanding has to be considered exploitive as well as manipulative. We do not create children to follow our lives or anyone else’s; we create children to share in our lives. If a child grows up and comes to GOD on their own or doesn’t believe in GOD the LOVE and UNDERSTANDING for them to come to their own beliefs and TRUTHs should still be available and encouraged by parents.
As far as believing baptism to be a requirement when a child does come to an understanding of an organized religion’s faith I believe is unfair because it is entrapment/enslavement.

[/quote]
[quote][b]Matthew 16[/b]
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  [color=red]Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [/color][/quote]


Christ Church hath bound me to raise my child within his church. Enslavement. Do you even understand what you are talking about. Yes I choose to enslave my child to God as I have enslaved myself. Remember we dont belong to ourselves.

[Brother Adam]

ICTHUS is right in that children are born with original sin, however, they do not commit actual sin until the age of reason. This is the teaching of scripture, Tradition, and most importantly the very "Pillar and Foundation of Truth" which ICTHUS has come to reject for the authority of himself and given a great deal of wieght to the traditions of men such as John Calvin.

Edited October 17, 2004 by Brother Adam

[Brother Adam]

Hrm....

[Mateo el Feo]

carrdero,

I'm sorry, but I find it a bit unproductive to dialog with someone who apparently believes himself either to be a god or at least thinks that he speaks for a god. I'm not interested in continuing because I only see it distracting from the initial topic.

Icthus,

My interest in this topic is not really comparitive (Catholic vs. non-Catholic views). Though, much of your answer was directed toward the question I asked, and I appreciate your answer. I'd like to respond a bit to your post:

[quote]Efficacious for what, exactly?[/quote]
For the removal of the stain of original sin and the remission of all previous actual sin. That would be the basic answer, as I understand it.

[quote]Thus, one might say that orthodox, confessional Reformed Christians believe in a kind of baptismal regeneration where the grace of baptism is not necessarily tied into the time wherein it is administered, but may be received later, or not at all, according to God's own good pleasure in Election (or in the words of the confession "according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time")[/quote]

So the "Election" is referring to predestination, correct? According to your quote, the act of Baptism and the grace of Baptism may be separated in time. But some acts don't result in grace. So at least some of the baptisms are not efficacious. So I wonder, would you say that the reverse is true: may the grace of baptism be received without the act of baptism?

I am still having trouble understanding how a believer would place importance on performing an act if they believed it to be purely symbolic.

I am just now thinking about a metaphor: the human body. The sacrament's externals (water to cleanse) is the skeleton. The received grace is the flesh (skin, muscles, organs, etc). The skeleton gives the body structure. The flesh moves the body. If you separate the two, what happens to each? Continuing the parallel, a detachment of the act from the received grace (even if by a short time), it would seem to me to be about the same as if I were to see a skeleton lying next to a blob of flesh. I could say I've got the whole body, but what a mess! LOL! OK, so I'm getting a bit silly...sorry!

[quote]There is Biblical basis for all of them [color=red](note: forms of baptism)[/color]- since baptism symbolizes Christ's blood being sprinkled, sprinkling is acceptable. Since it symbolizes being buried with Him, immersion is acceptable (and, in my opinion, preferable). Since it symbolises washing, pouring is acceptable..[/quote]
Again, I'm not terribly worried about the preference of one form over another. I'm just confused as to why someone would worry about a particular form vs. another if he or she believed the act to be purely symbolic. Why couldn't someone claim a new form that has what he or she believes to be better symbolism? For example, what if someone chose to be baptised with wine (hopefully sprinkling, not immersion!) instead of water? Who is to say (assuming he/she is not Catholic) whether such a novel form would be valid?

[quote][quote] (Me) 3)  What is the difference between a symbol that is judged to be valid versus one that is judged to be invalid?[/quote]
(Icthus) I'm not sure I understand the question. Care to elaborate?[/quote]
Certainly. I may be repeating myself a bit; but if one believes that the grace of baptism is totally detached from the act (i.e. it's symbolic), then the validity vs. invalidity is really meaningless. If it's a symbol, there is no consequence or benefit to the act being done in any prescribed way.

Hope that helps!

Thanks for the answers!