150,000 converts this year at Easter

[ckempston]

Don’t believe everything you read, ckempston. The Catholic Church has never made a blanket statement that Baptists are not validly baptized.

I didn’t say that was the case; the Catholic church HAS, however, defined valid baptism, and Baptists don’t practice it.

Since Baptists have no “central” authority, this is somewhat of a fruitless effort, but it was pretty easy to find a Baptist Minister (with a Doctorate of Theology) who defines Baptism for Baptists:

baptisttheology.org/documents/WhatMakesBaptismValid.pdf

A couple of quotes:

*Baptism is not essential for salvation and does not grant an elevated status of sinlessness.

The traditional formula is baptism in the name of the Father, theSon, and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost in older times). Valid baptism must at the very least be in Jesus’ name.*

There’s two problems right there. Baptism IS necessary for salvation, and Baptism in the name of Jesus is invalid (according to the RCC). I would expect that whoever was responsible for overseeing Newt’s conversion took this into account, but it was more a curiosity on my part.

 

[traillius]

I wonder if any other single christian denomination can in and of itself claim 150,000 non infant conversions in a single year in the US alone?

 

[YADA]

I didn’t say that was the case; the Catholic church HAS, however, defined valid baptism, and Baptists don’t practice it.

Since Baptists have no “central” authority, this is somewhat of a fruitless effort, but it was pretty easy to find a Baptist Minister (with a Doctorate of Theology) who defines Baptism for Baptists:

baptisttheology.org/documents/WhatMakesBaptismValid.pdf

A couple of quotes:

Baptism is not essential for salvation and does not grant an elevated status of sinlessness.

The traditional formula is baptism in the name of the Father, theSon, and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost in older times). Valid baptism must at the very least be in Jesus’ name.

There’s two problems right there. Baptism IS necessary for salvation, and Baptism in the name of Jesus is invalid (according to the RCC). I would expect that whoever was responsible for overseeing Newt’s conversion took this into account, but it was more a curiosity on my part.

In my nearly 15 years with RCIA, a Baptist baptism has not ever been found invalid …

Baptisms in the Mormon and Jehovah’s Witnesses are to the most commonly unrecogized …

Baptists accept the Trinity … Mormons and JW’s have baptisms that are very different from the “Christian” practice … centered around the person of Jesus and how they understand that … so I am curious why you would expect the Church to re-baptize “Baptists” …

Christians who come from denominations who may or may not baptize [ie - that do not require baptism for membership but only a Sinners prayer or some verbal statement of faith] are baptized if they never were actually baptized in their other tradition … I have seen that a few times … most Christian churches do baptize though …

Sometimes - if the person is unsure whether or not they were validly baptized [they think they were but have no clear memory and no 'paper trail"] a “conditional baptism” is performed because the Church recognizes only one baptism - if they were already baptized the second one does not matter and is not valid … hence the conditional nature … we may have these once every few years - not that common …

 

[ckempston]

I wonder if any other single christian denomination can in and of itself claim 150,000 non infant conversions in a single year in the US alone?

This is the reason I have raised some questions. We all know the saying about lies and statistics. Well, if you look at it as a matter of % increase, the Catholic church probably comes in low on the top 10. I found this site with some data that’s a few years old:

adherents.com/rel_USA.html

If you look as well at the % of church attendance relative to membership, the Catholic church also falls rather low on the list.

I know, personally, in my (local) church, attendance (including visitors) is always greater than the membership, and membership attendance is always close to 100%.

 

[NDfan]

Why would I do a thing like that? The topic invites a lot of criticism. Besides the fact that Catholics “save up” conversions for Easter, as if one day is better than any other to be baptized, the information was in need of clarification. As someone who comes from a movement with a very performance/numbers focused background, I’m naturally skeptical when someone starts throwing around big numbers as evidence of how great things are going.

In the US alone the Catholic church declined from around 64.8 million in 2005 to 64.1 million at the end of 2008. So around 700,000 left over a 3 year period. But this represents only the official number of people who have written to their local bishop announcing their withdrawal from the church. It does not include those that leave the church but never formally announce it which many do not. So really 150,000 is not too significant because it doesn’t replace what was already lost. The real test will be to see if the RCC keeps adding that type of number over the next 3 years. Also one other note is that the Catholic church has a 68% retention rate compared to 80% for Protestants as a whole.

 

[ralphinal]

I didn’t say that was the case; the Catholic church HAS, however, defined valid baptism, and Baptists don’t practice it.

Since Baptists have no “central” authority, this is somewhat of a fruitless effort, but it was pretty easy to find a Baptist Minister (with a Doctorate of Theology) who defines Baptism for Baptists:

baptisttheology.org/documents/WhatMakesBaptismValid.pdf

A couple of quotes:

*Baptism is not essential for salvation and does not grant an elevated status of sinlessness.

The traditional formula is baptism in the name of the Father, theSon, and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost in older times). Valid baptism must at the very least be in Jesus’ name.*

There’s two problems right there. Baptism IS necessary for salvation, and Baptism in the name of Jesus is invalid (according to the RCC). I would expect that whoever was responsible for overseeing Newt’s conversion took this into account, but it was more a curiosity on my part.

I have seen a few baptist baptisms in my day, and none of them were only in the Name of Jesus. Every one that I have ever seen is Trinitarian. For some reason, that link won’t open for me. What flavor baptist was the author?

 

[NDfan]

I wonder if any other single christian denomination can in and of itself claim 150,000 non infant conversions in a single year in the US alone?

Non-denoms can. They still represent the fast growing Christian sect.

 

[traillius]

I am guessing you are not a catholic. I propose this question to anyone. Who can name,and reference, any other SINGLE denomination ( not protestants or fundamentalists as a whole ) that will experience 150,000 non infant conversions this year in the US?

 

[ralphinal]

In the US alone the Catholic church declined from around 64.8 million in 2005 to 64.1 million at the end of 2008. So around 700,000 left over a 3 year period. But this represents only the official number of people who have written to their local bishop announcing their withdrawal from the church. It does not include those that leave the church but never formally announce it which many do not. So really 150,000 is not too significant because it doesn’t replace what was already lost. The real test will be to see if the RCC keeps adding that type of number over the next 3 years. Also one other note is that the Catholic church has a 68% retention rate compared to 80% for Protestants as a whole.

Personally, i agree with Mark Twain in the three forms of Falsehoods: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. So there.

Anyway, isn’t it a little shady to use a 80% for Protestants as a whole when some denominations are sinking like rocks and their departing members are just changing denominations? Would it not make more logical sense to compare large branch to large branch? Like Baptist vs. Lutheran vs. Episcopalian?

 

[NDfan]

I am guessing you are not a catholic. I propose this question to anyone. Who can name,and reference, any other SINGLE denomination ( not protestants or fundamentalists as a whole ) that will experience 150,000 non infant conversions this year in the US?

And as I said the non-denoms can. Non-denoms don’t represent protestants or fundamentalists as a whole. What does it have to do with me being Catholic I grew up Catholic matter of fact.

 

[NDfan]

Personally, i agree with Mark Twain in the three forms of Falsehoods: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. So there.

Ralph that’s a good one. That was my first thought when I read the OP.

Anyway, isn’t it a little shady to use a 80% for Protestants as a whole when some denominations are sinking like rocks and their departing members are just changing denominations? Would it not make more logical sense to compare large branch to large branch? Like Baptist vs. Lutheran vs. Episcopalian?

Not trying to be shady. No doubt some Protestant groups are doing better than others but so what. They’re still viewed as being outside the Catholic church right?

 

[ckempston]

I have seen a few baptist baptisms in my day, and none of them were only in the Name of Jesus. Every one that I have ever seen is Trinitarian. For some reason, that link won’t open for me. What flavor baptist was the author?

It’s a PDF, so you’d need Adobe to read it. The guy’s name is Dr. Thomas White with The Center for Theological Research, July 2006.

I was more referring to the intent of baptism, rather than the form. From the comment, it seemed that normatively, the Trinitarian formula was used, so that wasn’t really the big issue for me. I was merely pointing out there there are some differences in belief. If someone doesn’t believe that in Baptism he or she is forgiven of sins and receives the Holy Spirit, then this person just took a bath.

 

[ralphinal]

It’s a PDF, so you’d need Adobe to read it. The guy’s name is Dr. Thomas White with The Center for Theological Research, July 2006.

I was more referring to the intent of baptism, rather than the form. From the comment, it seemed that normatively, the Trinitarian formula was used, so that wasn’t really the big issue for me. I was merely pointing out there there are some differences in belief. If someone doesn’t believe that in Baptism he or she is forgiven of sins and receives the Holy Spirit, then this person just took a bath.

I see what you are saying. the only catch is that the Catholic Church has traditionally accepted it as valid. Perhaps it is because the understanding of intent in this case has more to do with being a part of the Body of Christ and not the remission of sins.

Anyway, for some unknown reason, I am more willing to accept the Catholic Church on which ones she sees as valid than some non-Catholic. No offense intended

 

[luisfigueroa24]

Considering the size of the Catholic church, that number is somewhat of a joke, statistically speaking. Indeed, heaven rejoices over one sinner that repents, but that would be an impressive figure for a church with less than a million members. That would be approximately 15%, and considering most “conversions” happen at Easter in Catholicism, well, honestly, is this really supposed to be impressive? A church that boasts 1.5 billion members growing by .001%? Wow. That means that 99.999% of members are ineffectual in their outreach.

Consider that this 150,000 conversions are only US conversions and you are comparing that to the amount of Catholics in the whole world. I think you are missing numbers. It is still a small amount of conversions though.

 

[ckempston]

I see what you are saying. the only catch is that the Catholic Church has traditionally accepted it as valid. Perhaps it is because the understanding of intent in this case has more to do with being a part of the Body of Christ and not the remission of sins.

Anyway, for some unknown reason, I am more willing to accept the Catholic Church on which ones she sees as valid than some non-Catholic. No offense intended

No problem. I believe I was confusing the “intent” caveat, which is what you say - being added to the church - rather than the “intent” to have sins forgiven, which would seem to me to be the primary purpose over being added to the church, but as you say, the Catholic church defines what it views as valid, not me.

 

[traillius]

And as I said the non-denoms can. Non-denoms don’t represent protestants or fundamentalists as a whole. What does it have to do with me being Catholic I grew up Catholic matter of fact.

You may have an axe to grind against the catholic church, which would provide a bias, meaning any stats you present would be in question.
Non-denoms do not consist to a single denomination. of course if you want to change the definition of the word…
and do " non-denoms " have 150,000 non infants joining this year ( or expected to ) in the US? If so, then please provide some valid reference.

 

[distracted]

Given the scandals that have rocked the church in recent years this seems to be a massive number of converts. I would like figures of the type of churches that they are coming from. Is it mainline protestants or the mega church types that have got bored with the glitz and show biz?

150,000 worldwide or in US?

 

[ckempston]

Consider that this 150,000 conversions are only US conversions and you are comparing that to the amount of Catholics in the whole world. I think you are missing numbers. It is still a small amount of conversions though.

Yup, I realized this after having it pointed out (several times).

 

[Pixie_Dust]

It’s a PDF, so you’d need Adobe to read it. The guy’s name is Dr. Thomas White with The Center for Theological Research, July 2006.

I was more referring to the intent of baptism, rather than the form. From the comment, it seemed that normatively, the Trinitarian formula was used, so that wasn’t really the big issue for me. I was merely pointing out there there are some differences in belief. If someone doesn’t believe that in Baptism he or she is forgiven of sins and receives the Holy Spirit, then this person just took a bath.

Just because someone doesn’t believe Baptism washes away their sins and gives them the Holy Spirit, doesn’t mean that’s not what happens.

That is the Catholic position - so long as a person is baptized in water in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is a valid, sacramental baptism, and cannot, will not be repeated when a baptized person becomes Catholic.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Besides the fact that Catholics “save up” conversions for Easter, as if one day is better than any other to be baptized, the information was in need of clarification. As someone who comes from a movement with a very performance/numbers focused background, I’m naturally skeptical when someone starts throwing around big numbers as evidence of how great things are going.

The conversions are not “saved up” - conversion is an ongoing thing throughout the life of a Christian. The conversions are celebrated communally after those who desire to be Catholic have received instruction in the Faith. I can’t think of a better time than Easter to celebrate the death and burial of the old self and the rebirth of the new self.

It’s not always necessary for baptized Christians to wait for Easter Vigil, either. I was confirmed in August.