Sacrements vs. Symbolic Ordinances

[Mateo el Feo]

I was thinking about the logical consequences of rejecting the efficacy of Sacraments (i.e. claiming that they are purely symbolic).

Using the example of Baptism, I'll quote a Baptist website ([url="http://elbourne.org/baptist/whybaptist/10_symbol.html"]link[/url]):
[quote]Baptists believe that forgiveness, justification, and salvation are of Christ, through faith, and that this saving and justifying faith must precede baptism and hence the relation these sustain to baptism makes baptism symbolical.[/quote]
So an outward sign is divorced from a spiritual reality. Playing the devil's advocate, I wanted to see where this viewpoint would logically lead. I immediately thought of Our Lord's Sacrifice. If He was instituting a purely symbolic Baptism, then why should I believe that His dying on the Cross was anything more than symbolic?

if I reject that the water of Baptism can be used as a means to wash away sin, why would I believe that Our Lord's Passion and Death could purchase for me eternal salvation? Shouldn't the "pure symbolism" position logically lead me to conclude that the Sacrifice of the Cross was a symbol, distinct from God's actual reconciliation with humanity (a spiritual reality)?

Just curious if anyone has thoughts/comments on this. Has anyone seen this argument answered by protestants?

Mateo

[dspen2005]

the argument could be in response that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is very real, because it is Christ Himself who is enduring it and offering the sacrifice; whereas, in Baptism it is mediated through the action of the minister (of course, there are surrounding and deeper issues revolving around the priest. but I am speaking in the way that I think a Prot would respond). Because of this mediation, it can only be a symbol b/c only Christ has the effective power

[Brother Adam]

It's always amusing to watch a Baptist stumble through Colossians 1:24-27