Aiming to deepen rite’s meaning, Baptist pastor in Ohio baptizes infant

Baptist News ^ | Jeff Brumley

[Tao Yin]

Please note that the malefactor was one of, if not the, last soul saved under the Mosaic/Davidic Covenant, for whom water baptism was not an issue. He was saved by faith alone in Jesus alone, the same way that people are saved under the New Covenant. However, obedience to the command of Christ to be inducted into the Company of The Committed, His Bride, is to submit oneself to the baptismal rite of accepting the role as a disciple under the New Covenant.

I would strongly disagree. Baptism isn't required for salvation. If some accepted Jesus as their savior and died in a car crash before they could be baptized, there is no theological problem with saying that they are saved.

If someone isn't baptized and rejects the idea that they need to be baptized for salvation, then there is a theological problem that is above my pay grade.

The thief on the cross is someone who died before he could be baptized, rather than someone who rejected baptism. There is no theological problem with the thief's salvation without baptism.

[chajin]

My question is for those Protestants who believe baptism to be a sacrament (vice an ordinance): do you accept the validity of a baptism performed by a group that believe it’s an ordinance (and not a sacrament)?

The distinction between sacrament and ordinance, it would seem to me, is the direction of the act: a sacrament is when God empowers through the action, while in an ordinance, God responds to the action.

If Baptism is an ordinance, then it would of necessity have to be a conscious choice of the baptized, since otherwise there would be nothing to which God could respond. In that case, the Baptists and their fellow travelers would be correct: baptism would have to be an act of a person who has chosen to repent and believe the Gospel.

If Baptism is a sacrament, however, then it would have to be the conscious act of the baptizer, since God would be working through the act. In other words, the baptizer would engage in an act which s/he clearly intends to be a baptism (as opposed to, say, a shower, or diving), and an infant, who is incapable of repentance, would thereby obtain God's grace and sanctification based on the faith of the parent (cf. Acts 16:33).

That would not necessarily mean, however, that the baptizer would have to grasp the totality of what God was doing in order for the sacrament to occur, since God does not need us to understand His actions in order to act.

So if baptism is a sacrament, and Rev. Baptistminister thinks it is an ordinance, God's action in the sacrament would be no less, because God is not constricted by our misunderstanding of His actions--for which we can thank Him, since all of us misunderstand His actions some of the time.

And I would take it one step further, though it is off the topic here. If the Real Presence of Christ is in the bread and wine of communion, then it is there, regardless of whether the institutor and/or the partaker believe it to be there. When I receive communion from my LCMS pastor, he and I believe that the Presence is there. That Rev. Baptistminister does not accept the Presence in communion is of no account: God is not limited by our lack of understanding, for which I thank Him, since I am sure I have a lack of understanding of most, if not all, of what He does. What "saves" Rev. Baptistminister is that he, when he institutes communion in his church's worship, does not desecrate the elements, but treats them with respect--he may not follow the divine liturgy or use a chalice pall, but his (mis?)understanding of communion as an ordinance leads him to act in ways that demonstrate his willingness to meet God there, and God shows Himself in ways that would surprise the minister, were he to truly understand them.

[Lee N. Field]

,i>Hey Baptists: Is this how y'all see Baptism, as "just a symbol"?

I'm not sure what meaning they, uh, pour into it. I usually see it described as mainly a believer's act of obedience.

[imardmd1]

Too many words here. I wanted you to restrict yourself to the issue in view, not a long harangue. You could have simplified your view by simply saying:

"Faith plus works equals salvation."

You say of Acts 2:37-39:

This tells us that baptism is necessary for the remission (forgiveness) of sins.

This is most certainly not so, for in the passage cited Peter is not saying this at all. In the Koine, the preposition "eis" in this passage does not have the sense "be baptized . . . to confer remission of sins . . .", which would negate repentance and belief as a reality prior to the act of baptism.

No, the correct interpretation of this preposition "eis" is that it means "be baptized . . . on the basis of sins already remitted . . ."; that is, the moment that God (who looks on the human heart with foreknowledge) has discerned in the beseeching soul a commitment to an eternally persistent repentant trust in Jesus, immediately forgives and forgets past sins, and creates a new being. On that basis, the new-born spiritual human candidate is now fit for induction into Christ's body of disciples by the funeral rite of baptism. That baptism--subsequent to and substantiated by confession of the new-born babe--signifies death to self, to Sin as a master, and to the world system; and recognizes the authority under which the human's life enlistment as a servant-disciple of Jesus, Lord and Christ, is inaugurated.

Furthermore, you interpret Acts 22:16 as saying, "So then, baptism washes away sins." That is not correct, for this sentence does not necessarily connect baptism with washing away of sins. You merely inferred that. In fact, that cannot be correct, for it is only the Blood of Christ that washes away one's sins; and being under The Blood is initiated by faith, and activated by confession, by agreeing with God concerning His Inner Witness.

In summary, interpreting the water baptism, which is a rite of induction into discipleship, as being instead a rite which imparts forgiveness of sins, is simply inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus, Peter, John, and Paul of salvation by faith.

That is why I cannot accept your handling of God's plan of salvation, which is embodied succinctly in Ephesians 2:8-10, and simply restated:

"Faith plus salvation equals works."

Out of this, one of the first works is water baptism as a visible rite of passage from spiritual death into spiritual life.

[imardmd1]

I would strongly disagree. Baptism isn't required for salvation.

You don't have anything to be disagreeable about.

First, on the Cross, the Mosaic Covenant, The Law, was in effect and Jesus was fulfilling it. Why don't you read over carefully what I wrote.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Children are not accountable therefore they cannot repent of any sin.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Children are not accountable therefore they cannot repent of any sin.

[Salvation]

Ever heard of godparents and parents who speak for the child?

[Mr Rogers]

“Ever heard of godparents and parents who speak for the child?”

Ever hear of a parent who can drag their child unwillingly into the Kingdom?

If you can repent of sin on behalf of others, why not repent for everyone and save everyone? Why not repent for every prisoner in a prison, and then forcibly baptize them and turn them all into children of God? Why not repent for the homeless, then splash some water on them so they will be saved?

[Iscool]

Baptists can cherry pick and ignore the examples, commands and teachings on baptism all they want to. But Christians can not. This is as simple as it gets.

And yet your denomination cherry picks a bunch of scripture and makes a nice little story out of it...

The only method that works to understanding the scriptures is to believe ALL the scriptures...You can't leave out the ones that don't fit your particular beliefs as your (and other) religion does...

It's funny when you guys accuse us of cherry picking a scripture or 20 and then find it impossible to comment on where that/those supposed cherry picked scriptures go...What they apply to...They become invisible to you guys...We are to use ALL the scripture and then divide it to apply it where it goes...

[markomalley]

The distinction between sacrament and ordinance, it would seem to me, is the direction of the act: a sacrament is when God empowers through the action, while in an ordinance, God responds to the action.

An interesting point of view.

How do you reconcile the view of a sacrament, when God empowers through the action with the definition: An efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us through the work of the Holy Spirit

Also, can you clarify what you mean, God responds to the action when speaking of an "ordinance?"

---

So if baptism is a sacrament, and Rev. Baptistminister thinks it is an ordinance, God's action in the sacrament would be no less, because God is not constricted by our misunderstanding of His actions--for which we can thank Him, since all of us misunderstand His actions some of the time.

First, let me point out that the Catholic Church accepts as valid any baptism that is done using a Trinitarian formula ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"...as opposed to "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier" or some other variant) and that uses water as matter. I accept the ruling.

However, the Code of Canon Law states, Can 832 §2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism. Frankly, although I accept the Church's decision on the matter, I linger with the question if the intent of a "ordinance" type baptism (either that of the baptizer or the baptized) is the same as the intent of those doing a "sacramental" baptism. The comments in this thread, frankly, reinforce that questioning.

Frankly, I wonder if those who practice "ordinance" baptism subscribe to the line from the Nicene-Constantinopalitan Creed that says I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Excellent point....Poor babe that does not get infant baptism goes straight to hell..NOT

[xzins]

The pastor has his reasons, and there are solid reasons out there from baby baptizing denominations, but what he did simply isn’t Baptist.

And the church should take “Baptist” off their sign.

And a Catholic church that ordains female priests should take “Catholic” off their sign.

And a Presbyterian church that refuses to have elders should take Presbyterian off their sign.

etc.

[Gamecock]

‘xactly.

[Cronos]

I believe to Baptists it is just a symbol. We may agree or disagree with them, but that’s their belief

[StormPrepper]

Please note that the malefactor was one of, if not the, last soul saved under the Mosaic/Davidic Covenant, for whom water baptism was not an issue.

I respectfully disagree.

Matt 3:
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan,
6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

The prophet John was teaching the doctrine of Baptism.

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Then Jesus Himself is baptized and says that it fulfills all righteousness. If Jesus had to be baptized how can we claim it is not necessary?

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Heavenly Father then parts the veil and declares His satisfaction with His Son.

The point is that once Jesus changed the law and commanded that all be baptized, which John was doing, there was no way around that commandment. No other way except the way Jesus had given to be on the path that leads to salvation.

That law is still in force and will be in force until the end of the earth. No one can enter into the kingdom of God unless they have been baptized by water unto repentance.

[StormPrepper]

You're assuming the thief hadn't already been baptized.

That's right...

Luke 23
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

He called Jesus, "Lord". And at that time only the true believers were still with Jesus. The rest were mocking and calling for His crucifixion.

And all true believers would have been baptized as was Jesus' commandment.

Baptism is necessary for repentance. Which makes Jesus' actions make sense.

[Texicanus]

Thank you for enlightening me. I need to restudy the timing of all of this since the new covenant and the church was not established until after Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. At this time, the thief was most likely a Jew who had not been baptized. Was the act of baptism necessary of both Jew or Gentile in either the old or new covenants or both?

Thanks again, FYI, as a true believer I was baptized way back in my college days. Wouldn’t want to be caught on a misunderstanding or technicality. :)