What is the meaning/purpose/effect of baptism, and how should it be performed?

Great Debates
1

I’m starting this thread after a suggestion made by Lib in another thread (which I am deliberately omitting to link, please don’t anyone ‘help’ me here).

There is seems much difference of view regarding baptism amongst (or should I say ‘between’) Christian believers of various flavours, what is the purpose/meaning of baptism? - what effect does it have on the person being baptised? What can we say for sure would be ‘sound Biblical teaching’ about it and what difference does it make (and why) whether ther individual is immersed or sprinkled? What is the value (if any) of infant baptism?

(if anyone wants to add some questions to this list, please feel free)

I would like to hear from all possible viewpoints here, but bear in mind that “there is no purpose because there is no God” may not be terribly helpful. By the same token, I’d like the believers to add as much depth of explanation as possible too; don’t assume that people reading this are prepared to take very much for granted.

I would like to start off by saying that the church to which I belong practices full immersion of adult believers, but the denomination (Methodist) does not seem to insist on this being the only possibility. I have rather an unformed opinion, so my contribution to this thread is likely to be in the form of questions.

2

[slight hijack] I believe that ‘between’ is appropriate for two people, while ‘amongst’ is used for more than two [/slight hijack]

I attend an Independent Baptist Church in the UK. We have links with the Evangelical Alliance and the Elim Pentecostal Church.

For us, full adult immersion is symbolic… it’s part of the public declaration of our faith. In essence, the ‘old life’ is left in the water and the ‘new life’ emerges.

There’s two-pence worth to start the ball rolling.

We use ordinary tap water (courtesy of the local water company)… it is not blessed or prayed over.

3

Does your church consider it ‘necessary’ Walor?

4

The Roman Catholic Church believes that baptism is the gateway to all seven of the sacraments and is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire. By it people are freed from sins, are born again as children of God and, made like to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. It is validly conferred only by a washing in real water with the proper form of words. See Canon Law 849.

Unless in a case of urgent necessity, the water used is to be blessed - holy water. It may be conferred by either immersion or by pouring. Unless it’s an emergency, a priest or a deacon is the minister of the sacrament.

A person may be baptized only once - as the paragraph above hints, it leaves an indelible mark, or imprints a character, on the recipient’s soul.

  • Rick
5

We believe that salvation (and new life) happen at the moment that we repent sincerely of our sins and accept Jesus Christ as our saviour. In that sense baptism is not necessary for salvation.

However, scripture tells us to repent and be baptised and so we do… that’s part of being faithful to our saviour.

6

Is it possible that sprinkling could be an equally valid symbol?

7

I never was one for them fancy bible-learnin’ lessons, but i was privy to a catholic up bringing so here goes.

John the baptist was, i think, the originator of the practice, or maybe he was just the most famous one, not sure, some biblical scholar will likely chime in on that one… please?
anyway, his big thing was “i’m baptizing you with water, but jesus is coming and he will baptize you with the holy spirit” and then jesus came to be baptized by john, and john got all humble and said “it is i that should be baptized by you” but then jesus got baptized by john, but then some bad guys showed up and there was a car chase… wait, that was from a movie

anyway…
we are all born with original sin, first committed by adam and eve.
Baptism serves to wash away that sin and thus allow the person to enter heaven
(tough side question: does a baby go to hell if it dies before baptism? i’ll consult my ubercatholic mom on that one)

that’s why it’s one of the first orders of business in a person’s life.

usually holy water is poured over the head of the baby by the priest, much prayers are said, and then there’s a party.

again, it opens up the door to the rest of the sacraments, which are like a life list for catholics, a scavenger hunt of sorts in order to get into heaven, the others are:
first confession
first communion
confirmation
marriage
ordination (not everyone gets this one)
and last rights/annointing of the sick

as far as other benefits to the child? well, the child becomes part of a social institution that serves to insulate the child from life’s negative influences, bumps, bruises, drugs, gangs, etc
so, i believe there are some secular benefits of the whole religious involvement thing.

8

I’m on break and time limited but will give it a shot. I tend to agree with the above. The thief on the cross had never been baptized, yet Jesus said to him, “today you will be with me in paradise”. I believe that baptism is being obedient to the Lord, but that in itself, it can’t save anyone. As said by walor above salvation occurs at the moment of repentenc and trusting in Christ as Saviour. Our church does total immersion of those who make a confession of faith in Christ. I know there are people who believe that it is necessary for salvation, however. There is a Scripture which says he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Yet in other Scriptures talking about salvation, baptism isn’t always mentioned.

9

As being the person who started The Other Thread this topic is of much interest to me.

As Bricker said:

Being born and raised in the RCC, and now having not practiced for more than 15 years, I see too many potential flaws with the above statement.
I do not believe any of my two children both young boys have committed any sin when they were born. And the Idea of some, that Baptism eliminated Original Sin is ludicrous in my mind. How can a newly born, innocent child have any sin?
I was baptized RC and went through all the sacraments accept marriage with the church. I was married in a beautiful outdoor autumn civil service when I was 26 years old. Now 32, I have not been a practicing Catholic for a long while, neither has my wife.

Now Walor said:

I am ahving a hard time with this as well. This would mean that a young child who does not understand * Repenting for Sin* is not saved. Is that to say the a young child is damned until he/she repents for the sins – that they have not committed yet – and taken Jesus Christ as their saviour?

Children who are baptized before they have the intellect to understand what they are doing and who they are putting their faith in are being baptized – in a way – against their future adult will. What about before Baptism and Christianity? Were all the people running around the world creating civilization simply happy heathens?

10

Never really thought about sprinkling. Not sure how sprinkling could symbolise the leaving of the old life and the emergence of the new?

The scriptural baptisms suggest full immersion and so we follow suit.

11

Papist chiming in here. As Bricker pointed out above, Baptism can be achieved in the Catholic tradition by, in addition to water, by desire or blood. Desire means you’ve intended to do it, but say, you’re hit by a bus on your way to have it done. There’s something fundamentally unfair about desiring to be with God, yet through no fault of your own, missing it, so the “desire” is a sufficient substitute for the formal ceremony.

(“Blood,” as a side note, is the same idea: an unbaptized person is martyred in Christ’s name.)

Think of Baptism as a formality in entering into a relationship with God. Say you have a generous uncle who agrees to sell you his car for $1. In essence, he’s giving you a gift free and clear, because you’re saving out on however many thousands of dollars for the car’s value. Nonetheless, you still owe him $1 as a formality, and the contract wouldn’t be enforceable until you do so.

Baptism: same idea. In pretty much all Christian traditions, salvation is a gift which man cannot earn no matter how virtuous they act. Nevertheless, it’s a formality to show that you’re serious about entering into a relationship with God. (Even Christ was baptized by John the Baptist, not because Christ needed to save himself, but because as a fully human Jew, he wanted to keep with formalities.) Same applies to the situation with the generous uncle: if you became arrogant enough to assume that you’re entitled to the car without paying the $1, he’d be rightly insulted and would be entitled to revoke the car.

12

Is it possible for baptism to be the actual act of repentance/submission ot Christ’s lordship (instead of the ‘pray these words after me’ thing)?

13

Not ducking the issue, but I think this has been pretty well debated in other threads.

14

This mght be useful [ b]Phlosphr**

Other thread

15

Hmmm! The preview got it wrong again. That should be Phlosphr.

16

Speaking, as usual, from the woolly liberal end of the Church of England…

Baptism, in the CoE, is usually performed on infants, and is seen more as a commitment from their parents (and godparents) that they will bring up the child as a Christian and a member of the community of the Church. When someone reaches an age where they can reasonably make up their own minds about whether or not they’re a Christian, they will attend a confirmation service, where they get to reaffirm their baptismal vows for themselves, get blessed by a bishop, and are, thereafter, full members of the Church and able to receive the sacraments. I understand it’s not too different in other denominations.

I don’t think it’s necessary for salvation, but it is an important outward sign of one’s desire to be a part of the Church. Both baptism and confirmation are, technically, required; when I was taking my confirmation classes (only a few years ago - my beliefs ranged all over the theological map before I came to realise I really believed in Christ) one of my fellows had never been baptised, and he underwent adult baptism before the confirmation service. Baptism, in the CoE, is done by pouring water on the head, not full immersion.

It’s not a necessary process - when you come down to it, very few formalities are actually necessary. But it’s an outward sign of an inward grace, and, as a symbol, it has whatever meaning you can give to it in your soul. I don’t remember being baptised, but my confirmation was one of the landmark events in my life.

17

Anglican (Evangelical, Charismatic Anglican, for what it is worth) checking in…

I was baptised as an infant by my parents, and then confirmed a year or two after I had come to faith. I saw my confirmation as my own public affermation of the baptismal vows that were made on my behalf by my parents and have no real desire to be “re-baptised” as some Christians might urge me to (believing my infant baptisim to have been invalid, claiming that one has to make one’s own vows as a believer).

Having said that, there is no doubt that the baptisim of a believing adult is full of powerful symbolism, and is of great benefit and encouragement to both those being baptised and those witnessing the baptisim. A small part of me wishes that I had not been baptised as an infant so I could get “properly” baptised. My wife and I have discussed what we might do when it comes to having children - and reached no conclusion as yet. While we see value in the practice of infant baptisim (the welcoming into the family, the promises made to raise the child in the faith, the trusting that God will honour his end of the bargin) we would dearly love to see the child come to a point of making that step for themselves…

greck said:

This is not really true, the Jews had developed ritual bathing many years before, although the Essenes (an ascetic sect to which JtB is thought to have belonged) were the ones who were strictest in thier practice of it.

Grim

18

Another reason for infant baptism (taught by my church, anyway)is that when the apostles went out to spread the gospel, they baptized entire families of believers, and didn’t appear to require a separate “conversion moment” for each individual member. It would make sense then, that there was also some baptizing of infants done at that time, and that if new family members were born, they would not wait until they were grown to baptise them. it is also a ceremony that replaced circumcision.

I was baptized as an infant, I think it is a beautiful ceremony that symbolizes God’s covenant with us, and his promise that we belong to him. When I was 17, I made my public Profession of Faith that is like an adult baptism, but without the water. I was then considered a full member and able to participate in the sacraments. Since my church believes it is not the actual water itself that saves, it is just a symbol of cleansing, it is not ‘necessary’ for salvation.

19

And just to add some historical context to baptism …

Baptism arose out of the Jewish tradition of the Mikveh. This is the ceremonial bath. In Jewish tradition the Mikveh is used to “cleanse” a person before conversion, and after after a woman’s period has passed before sexual relations may recommence. (The Orthodox maintain this tradition of taharat ha-mishpakha, family purity, to this day.) Probably it was the latter concept of “purification” after menses that was its original tribal origin. BTW, its a dunk, not a sprinkle.

It is easy to see why it would come be used for its current symbolic values in the various Christian traditions, and to imagine why it was used the way it was in Christian scripture by the very earliest Christians who were often formerly practicing Jews.

20

I’ve attended churches where baptism is one of the two sacraments (communion being the other one) and it should be done…
but it is not an absolute necessity, and the details of baptism are left up to the individuals. Both churches would sprinkle if you wanted, or provide opportunities for full immersion (just not as frequently because that involved more preparation). Both would baptize infants, dedicate infants (if the parents chose that instead), and baptize people who were old enough to decide for themselves to be baptized.

As far as adult/believer baptism, the arguments I’ve heard for it are that it is a symbol of faith and a public confession that the person being baptized is a christian. (Romans 10:9-10). It also goes along with the ceremony performed by John, which included repentance (which is something an infant cannot do, as she is unaware of pretty much everything).

For infant baptism, I’ve heard the argument that when in Acts someone was baptized, it usually included the person and their entire household (Acts 16:15, 16:33), which probably included young children/infants so it was a sign of the adult’s faith - and intent to raise the child to believe in Christ. Also that baptism is a sign of the new covenant and promise and is analagous to circumsicion as the sign of the old covenant and promise and that was performed on 8-day old infants, who had no idea what was happening to them either. (Colossians 2:11-12)