Baptism's meaning

[burnsspivey]

A million years later...

Ex-baptist (southern and then independant) here. On baptism:

1) Do any protestants believe that Baptism is efficacious?

No, one must already be saved to be baptised. It is simply a public announcement, if you will, of said saving. It's usually necessary for becoming a member of a church.

2) How does one reconcile the insistance on a particular form (i.e. immersion) if it's all just a symbol?

Because a) it's the way that Jesus did it and b) each part of the immersion is symbolic. It's the life, death, rebirth cycle (born-again christian, right?) as well a symbol of Jesus' life with coming out of the water symbolizing his resurrection.

3) What is the difference between a symbol that is judged to be valid versus one that is judged to be invalid?

If baptism is done in any other way the symbolism is lost and thus it's invalid.

[Mateo el Feo]

Hi burnsspivey,

Thanks for answering my questions.

One question regarding question number three:

[quote]3) What is the difference between a symbol that is judged to be valid versus one that is judged to be invalid?

If baptism is done in any other way the symbolism is lost and thus it's invalid. [/quote]
I'm not seeing an answer to the question. What is the consequence of an "invalid" symbol, beside that it is "invalid"? And why worry about "lost symbolism"?

If you look at the dictionary.com entry on the term [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=valid"]invalid (link)[/url], the second definition is interesting:
[quote][b]Invalid[/b]:  Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.[/quote]
In this context, what "desired results" are produced by a "valid" baptism that would not be achieved by an "invalid" baptism? It would seem that if this was all just symbolism, then there is no substantial difference between an invalid baptism and a valid baptism.

Enjoy!

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 10 2004, 12:31 PM'] Hi burnsspivey,

Thanks for answering my questions.

One question regarding question number three:


I'm not seeing an answer to the question. What is the consequence of an "invalid" symbol, beside that it is "invalid"? And why worry about "lost symbolism"?

If you look at the dictionary.com entry on the term [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=valid"]invalid (link)[/url], the second definition is interesting:

In this context, what "desired results" are produced by a "valid" baptism that would not be achieved by an "invalid" baptism? It would seem that if this was all just symbolism, then there is no substantial difference between an invalid baptism and a valid baptism.

Enjoy! [/quote]
Because a symbolic act only has the meaning given to it. If that meaning is lost the symbolism is lost and the act is meaningless.

[quote]Symbol: something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance[/quote]

If the parts of submersion in baptism stands for life, death and rebirth (and simultaneously for Jesus' life) then without them what does baptism stand for?

A better [url="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=valid"]definition[/url] of valid in this instance:
[quote]well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful [/quote]

If it isn't relevant and meaningful (by loss of symbolism) it isn't valid.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote]If it isn't relevant and meaningful (by loss of symbolism) it isn't valid.[/quote]
This seems to me to be circular reasoning. It seems that the only consequence of an invalid baptism is that it isn't valid. But if it's just a symbol, then a judgment (i.e. determination of validity) is necessarily meaningless.

Edit: On second thought, it seems from other threads that you're not a Christian and you really don't hold the position that you're trying to describe. I'd prefer to focus on discussions with people who are Protestant believers.

Edited December 10, 2004 by Mateo el Feo

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Oct 26 2004, 01:00 PM'] Here ya go....


Our understanding of Our Blessed Lady depends totally upon our understanding of her Son. Everything about her flows from her being Christ's mother; as our understanding of him grows, our understanding of her grows. It was so with the Church. By the year 500 the main dogmas about Christ had been defined (yes! 500 years people!) The Church's mind could now bear upon his Mother; we come to hear the Assumption and Immaculate Conception. It is so with ourselves: unless we have some knowledge of the doctrines of Trinity of Incarnation, we can still love her but cannot know her; and we know that loving without deep knowledge is only a shadow of loving.

Theoketos, said the Council of Ephesus in 431; she is the mother of God; the child she conceived and bore is God the Son. In his divine nature he had exited eternally. But his human nature he owed to her as much as anyone owes his human nature to his mother. There is nothing that makes my mother mine which is lacking in her relation to him as man. As God he was born of the Father before all ages; as man he was born at a particular point of time of the Virgin Mary. Do not think it sufficient to call her the mother of his human nature; for natures do not have mothers. She was mother, as yours or mine is, of the person born of her. And the person was God the Son. Most find this truth almost shattering in its greatness; it is not simply a biographical fact about Jesus which one notes but does not linger upon. There are those who do see it like that and so dismiss it. One imagines them saying, "Naturally, if God was to be born into our world, one would expect him to have a mother; but haveing brought him to birth she had done her duty and passes into the background." If though of all by such people, she is thought of with respect. But she is not often thought of. There is a type of religious mind which brushes creatures aside as irrelevant, indeed a distraction from the Absolute. The Absolute did not find them so. The Son died for them; for them the Father spared not his own Son (Rom 8:33)
I have put it this way of looking at her as a sort or rough outline of a whole state of mind. In its more extreme utterance it can be so comic that one almost forgets how tragic it is. On the outdoor platform I once had a questioner who said, solemnly: "I respect Christ's mother as I respect my own." The overwhelming temptation, when one hears such a remark, is to point to the difference between the two sons. But it is necessary to make clear why the difference makes a difference. We are not saying that mothers of holy children are better that mothers of less holy. The difference is not between on son who is holy and another who is less obviously so. It is between a Son who is God and a son who is man only.

To start simply, the Son existed before his mother. So that he is the only Son who is in a postition to choose who his mother should be. He could choose therefore, what every son would choose if he could, a mother who would suit him best. Further, it goes with the very heart of sonship that a son wants to give his mother gifts; and Christ, being God, could give her all that she would want. To his giving power there was no limit. And what above all she wanted was union with God, the completest union possible to a human being of her will with God's will, grace therefore in her soul.

He was her Son, and he gave it lavishly. She responded totally, so that she was sinless. It was her response to the grace of God that made her supreme in holiness- higher even than the highest angel, the Church tells us. We may pause for a moment to look at this truth. By nature she was lower than the least angel, for human nature as such is less than angelic. But, any relation in the order of grace is higher than any in the order of nature. It is by grace that we are closer to God; by our response, that is, to the created share in his own life that God offers us. By grace Our Lady outranks all created beings. But only because she responded to God's love more perfectly. St. John Chrysostom says, "She would not have been blessed, though she had borne him in the body, had she not heard the word of God and kept it." [/quote]
Why are you talking about Mary? This thread has nothing to do with her.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 10 2004, 02:02 PM'] Why are you talking about Mary? This thread has nothing to do with her. [/quote]
I think Quietfire was responding to your post, which included a denial of the Immaculate Conception.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Oct 25 2004, 02:14 AM']






God bless,

Mateo [/quote]
[quote]Depending on the interpretation, I may agree with some of the statements.  For example, let's look at OSAS.  I could say that I believe in it in the following sense: at the end of the life, we are saved (once).  From that moment on, we are saved for eternity.  I just don't believe in the novel interpretations of the various protestant positions, as they contradict the message of Jesus Christ, His Word, and His Church.[/quote] DANGIT! I keep telling you people, it's NOT OSAS, its POTS or POTE. And this is one example of why OSAS is a bad acronym to use. We are saying that the elect will infallibly persevere and be eternally saved. That is all.

[quote]Actually, I don't take seriously the idea that you or any other Calvinist has the ability to judge souls (even your own) before you get to God's judgment at the end of your life.[/quote] Granted the point about others souls, however, as proved before, we are given criterion in the Word by which we may judge the state of our souls.

[quote]Also, regarding St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, I always found it interesting that the final verse doesn't list our own will.  Nothing external can separate us from God.  But what about our own free will?  It's not on the list...[/quote] That list is not an exhaustive list (nor is it intended to be). The things St. Paul lists are examples of the fact that nothing, no matter how mighty or powerful, can seperate us from God's love.

[quote]Regarding my Adam and Eve quote:

In my understanding, Adam had received grace from God.  Heck, God walked with Adam, so the relationship couldn't have been too bad.  OK, so Adam lost that relationship and that grace (not to mention all the nice fruit in Eden).  If God hadn't given Adam enough grace, does that mean He was setting Adam up for a Fall, so to speak?  I don't think so.  I think that God did not positively will Adam's disobedience.[/quote] Okay, I see what you're saying. Well, the WCF even admits that Adam had God's grace, but mutably, so that he might fall from it. So I guess we are agreed here.

[quote][b]All[/b] who receive the sacrament of Baptism will receive God's grace.  We are basically brought to the pre-Fall state of Grace, like Adam and Eve.  And just as Adam's sin and banishment don't prove that God had withheld His grace from Adam, so our own sins do not prove the lack of Baptismal grace.[/quote] This is only meaningful if you accept[i] ex opere operato[/i] baptismal regeneration, which I do not.

[quote]The concept of eternal security is only meaningful to those who exist outside of time...and all of us mortals are constrained by time.  It's a nice topic to create controversies.  Goodness knows that protestant views about what "eternal security" vs. POTS vs. OSAS seems to cover a wide spectrum of differing opinions.[/quote] Actually, its very relevant to us mere mortals. It changes the whole way we view God's grace if we acknowledge His ability and willingness to enable His elect to persevere, and the fact that He will in fact do so.

[quote]But placing these controversies aside, the idea has no meaning on the judgment of individual souls while they are alive.  If they are going to fall into sin in the future (and possible eternal damnation), only God will know.[/quote] Of course. As we read in the WCF (man, I love quoting this document)

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, [b]and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will,[/b] hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

So yes - the number and identity of the Elect are known to God only. However, we may exhort our brethren, as St. Augustine did when asked "Who are the elect" - he said "You are, if you wish to be", and then tell them how they may 'make certain their calling and election'

[quote]The only consequence I can see (from your interpretation) is a denial of the efficaciousness of the Sacrament of Baptism on the souls of some or all of its recipients.  According to your description of Calvinism, one must conclude that those who are baptized cannot have confidence that what they did means anything at all!  "But don't worry, baptized Calvinist, God will tell you if the waters resulted in the gift of grace when you reach the judgment of God!"[/quote] No - you've missed the point entirely. If a person has faith in Christ until the end of his life, then his baptism was efficacious for the purpose it was intended for.

[quote]I've read the sections that seem relevant to the topic.  I just don't think that the existance of a baptized person who dies outside of God's friendship would necessarily deny the efficacy of his baptism.  I don't think it's Biblical to believe that God is handing out a bunch of sacramental duds.[/quote] "The wind blows where it wills, and no one can tells from where it comes and where it goes. So it is with the Spirit of God"

The problem here is [i]ex opere operato. [/i] We don't deny that in some there is the action of the Spirit in baptism - we deny that it [i]must[/i] occur [i]immediately[/i] and in [i]every case[/i]

[quote]Ummm...so we're don't know if we're among the Elect?  OK, now we're getting somewhere.  So who can be "Eternally Secure"?  God only knows....LOL![/quote] Those who persevere, of course. The difference is, Calvinists place all their trust in God's ability to enable them to persevere, and Roman Catholics, it seems, doubt it.

[quote]If water were necessary for Baptism, wine has it. But, the Catholic Church goes further and states that not only must we use water; but the water must be pure. Wine would pass the test for the literal interpretation of the Bible (which only speaks of water), but fail when we applied the Sacred Tradition of the Church that demands water to be "pure."[/quote] Scripture says "water" so we use water. Pure water. Actually, most people were baptised in a river in the NT. So, you'd have to be pretty retarded to baptise a person in wine. God gave us reason for this exact purpose.

[quote]Also, I might not have been clear: I wasn't suggesting that what they (the Holiness People) were doing was baptism.  I [b]was[/b] suggesting that there is no authority in Protestantism to approve or reject any novel doctrine developed by its various denominations, other than personal interpretation.[/quote] Yes, there is. Churches have Confessions and a hierarchy for a reason.

[quote]Here, we arrive at Calvin's "double predestination," which contradicts scripture (let me know if you would like me to back this up with quotes).  God wills all men to be saved--certainly, Christs sacrafice was done for all mankind.  Only God's permissive will allows the unfaithful to be lost. [/quote] If Christ's sacrifice was for all mankind, then all mankind would be saved. Clearly, this is false.

[quote]Anyway, you are using an argument that assumes you are able to read the soul by the "evidence" of regeneration.  Only God has a knowledge of the soul...and only God knows who the Elect are.  So, let's not worry about predestination, and just "go through life as if we are among the Elect!"  [/quote] Well, obviously we can't judge what's in a persons heart, however, if a person is living in unrepentant sin we can have some idea of what his status with God is.

As for my statement that you keep quoting, I didn't know how else to put it when I said that. I was trying to convey the idea that we live our lives making our faith ever firmer and deeper entrenched in Christ, 'working our salvation out in fear and trembling', but all the while having confidence in God's mercy and forgiveness of our sins and His ability to enable us to persevere.

[thessalonian]

"If Christ's sacrifice was for all mankind, then all mankind would be saved. Clearly, this is false. "

Only if you believe in irresistable grace. But of course those who believe in irresistable grace believe that God cannot stop men from sinning.

1 Corinthians 10:13
Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it.

In other words God gives us the grace to resist all temptation. So why do we end up sinning? Because we resist that grace because we still have some attachment to that sin which he gives us the grace to overcome. The scriptures tell us that God will always give us a way out of sin and yet we still do so logic tells you that Irresistable grace is false. Thus it is logical that a God "who desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" recieve his grace. The very fact that all men recieve his laws "implanted on their hearts, such that noone has an excuse" romans 2:15 is evidence enough of this. What kind of a God would we have that sacrificed his son who was infinite, therefore is infinite in grace, yet withheld that grace from some such that they had no chance at salvation and were damned from day one.

You may say, well you have the same problem since the God you propose is unjust in not giving them enough grace to be saved. But the God of heaven sees a greater good in allowing man his free will and not interveening in a manner that would violate that free will. He will assist the choice by his grace but he will not force us to love him and obey him.

God bless

Edited December 10, 2004 by thessalonian

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 10 2004, 02:48 PM']

1 Corinthians 10:13
Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it.

In other words God gives us the grace to resist all temptation. So why do we end up sinning? Because we resist that grace because we still have some attachment to that sin which he gives us the grace to overcome. The scriptures tell us that God will always give us a way out of sin and yet we still do so logic tells you that Irresistable grace is false. Thus it is logical that a God "who desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" recieve his grace. The very fact that all men recieve his laws "implanted on their hearts, such that noone has an excuse" romans 2:15 is evidence enough of this. What kind of a God would we have that sacrificed his son who was infinite, therefore is infinite in grace, yet withheld that grace from some such that they had no chance at salvation and were damned from day one.

You may say, well you have the same problem since the God you propose is unjust in not giving them enough grace to be saved. But the God of heaven sees a greater good in allowing man his free will and not interveening in a manner that would violate that free will. He will assist the choice by his grace but he will not force us to love him and obey him.

God bless [/quote]
[quote]"If Christ's sacrifice was for all mankind, then all mankind would be saved. Clearly, this is false. "

Only if you believe in irresistable grace.  But of course those who believe in irresistable grace believe that God cannot stop men from sinning.  [/quote] No, this is not what irresistable grace is. Irresistable grace means that if God wants a person to be regenerated, he will be regenerated. End of story. The regenerate still sin, but their sin is not imputed to them.

[quote]1 Corinthians 10:13
Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it.

In other words God gives us the grace to resist all temptation.  So why do we end up sinning?  Because we resist that grace because we still have some attachment to that sin which he gives us the grace to overcome.  The scriptures tell us that God will always give us a way out of sin and yet we still do so logic tells you that Irresistable grace is false. [/quote] No, logic doesn't tell us that. Care to elaborate?

[quote]Thus it is logical that a God "who desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" recieve his grace.  The very fact that all men recieve his laws "implanted on their hearts, such that noone has an excuse" romans 2:15 is evidence enough of this.  What kind of a God would we have that sacrificed his son who was infinite, therefore is infinite in grace, yet withheld that grace from some such that they had no chance at salvation and were damned from day one.[/quote] God passively desires that all be saved, yes, but actively takes steps to save only some.

As for those who "had no chance at salvation and were damned from day one."

It is written:

Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:16 PM'] Irresistable grace means that if God wants a person to be regenerated, he will be regenerated. [/quote]


Are you saying that God doesn't want everyone to be regenerated?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:28 PM']

Are you saying that God doesn't want everyone to be regenerated? [/quote]
That's the general idea. Welcome to the loving land of Calvin.

[thessalonian]

" The regenerate still sin, but their sin is not imputed to them. "

So God cannot stop sin evidently. Therefore his death did not give him power over sin. It just gave him power to clean up the mess or to overlook our sins that he can't stop anyway. I guess the imputed righteousness of Luther in which we are "snow covered dung" says that he doesn't really even clean up the mess but just hides it under the bed like my kids like to do sometimes when I tell them to clean up their room.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:52 PM'] That's the general idea. Welcome to the loving land of Calvin. [/quote]
Very problematic of course. It says that there was not enough grace from that cross to overcome what Adam did to all of mankind. There are some that God does not have enough power to save. It creates the very problems that it is trying to overcome.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:58 PM'] Very problematic of course. It says that there was not enough grace from that cross to overcome what Adam did to all of mankind. There are some that God does not have enough power to save. It creates the very problems that it is trying to overcome. [/quote]
quite right.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:52 PM'] That's the general idea. Welcome to the loving land of Calvin. [/quote]
Why I never could understand Calvinism...

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 10 2004, 12:59 PM'] This seems to me to be circular reasoning. It seems that the only consequence of an invalid baptism is that it isn't valid. But if it's just a symbol, then a judgment (i.e. determination of validity) is necessarily meaningless.

[/quote]
Of course that's the only consequence -- what other one could there be? Perhaps the inability to join a church, but beyond that nothing. Sprinkle water on your head all day long if you like, it doesn't matter. You can go to heaven without being baptised as long as you are saved.

[quote]Edit: On second thought, it seems from other threads that you're not a Christian and you really don't hold the position that you're trying to describe.  I'd prefer to focus on discussions with people who are Protestant believers.[/quote]

Just because I no longer believe it does not mean that I never have. I was very devoutly christian for many years. Besides, the subtitle simply states 'non-catholic' not 'protestant'.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 10 2004, 04:02 PM'] Why I never could understand Calvinism... [/quote]
Me too. As soon as I started thinking through my faith, this is what I kept hanging up on. Catholicism takes care of the problem quite nicely, and actually creates a balanced view of Scripture, rather than focusing on only bits and pieces of it.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote]Just because I no longer believe it does not mean that I never have. I was very devoutly christian for many years. Besides, the subtitle simply states 'non-catholic' not 'protestant'. [/quote]

I was interested in the "non-Catholic" who believes in baptism. I thought that it was obvious that there is little use to discuss Christian baptism with a non-Christian.

Anyway, thanks for your perspective, even as an ex-Christian.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 10 2004, 04:17 PM']
I was interested in the "non-Catholic" who believes in baptism. I thought that it was obvious that there is little use to discuss Christian baptism with a non-Christian.

Anyway, thanks for your perspective, even as an ex-Christian. [/quote]
Ah, so if I believed in baptism that was other than christian it would count?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote]Ah, so if I believed in baptism that was other than christian it would count?[/quote]

If you believed in Catholic baptism, it "wouldn't count" in this discussion, because I was interested in the views of a particular subset of Christians that does not include Catholics. If you read the first post (especially the questions), this point should become clear.

To underline the point, the thread says nothing about the Catholic view of non-Catholic baptisms. I'm interested in learning the Protestant view/views of baptism.