A question - not meant to inflame.

[mdstanzel]

The term “water baptism” gives the implication that there is some other kind of baptism available.

Baptism of the Spirit.
2 Cor 1:21-22
Acts 8:14-18
Acts 19:1-6

That’s the scripture, we could go into the Early Church Fathers if you wish.

Catholic Revert.

PAX Tecum

 

[O.S.Luke]

Try telling that to the 80,000+ adult converts who will enter the Catholic Church this year in the US alone after an intense 6-12 month period of study and prayerful discernment.

Folks wander down the aisle in response to your “altar calls” every Sunday, but no one comes into the Catholic Church quickly or without reflection.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

It helps nothing. More anti-Protestant bigotry and misinformation. Be careful when you accuse others of spin.

No one comes into the church of my tradition quickly or without reflection, either. Youth must go through confirmation classes, parents wanting their children baptized must go through classes and discernments, and those transferring their membership from another tradition must also go through membership classes.

Your use of quotes around “altar call”, as well as your tip of the hat, shows disdain and disrespect. It also shows that you are not as knowledgable about some Protestant traditions as you think you do.

 

[The_Truthinator]

^Agreed.

What’s more, who here can deny that Christ uses any number of mediums to accomplish his Will? To claim that your church (or denomination or institutional affiliation or McDonalds giftcard) is the primary mode by which God reaches the world is to undermine, in some way, his sovereignty–the fact that he uses any and all that he sees fit. Even in the gospels, do we not see unbelievers casting out demons is Yeshua’s name?

 

[Kevan]

Do you want me to quote every single post of his?

No, just show us from his own words that he taught what you said he taught

Why don’t you understand what he is driving at?

I understand him just fine. And if you can prove your accusation, go right ahead.

Does someone who believes in tradtional baptism call it "water baptism?

Certainly. It distinguishes it from Spirit baptism, mentioned in the verses MDStanzel referenced.

In this post, he says, “If you seriously believe water baptism frees you from sin, then you will have a hard time in front of the Judgement Seat of Christ.”

As I originally said, he is differing with the Catholic doctrine of the meaning of baptism. He believes, as do most noncatholics, that baptism does not wash away sins.

He also goes on at length against “man-made religion,” later in the thread. It shouldn’t take a genius to figure out that, in his viewpoint, going inside of a church at all is a bad idea

Actually, I think a genius would realize that he hasn’t taught anything of the sort.

ducked in a pool of water is, therefore, a man-made ritual, and has nothing to do with the baptism commanded by Christ (as he keeps on repeating), which is purely spiritual, and not seen by human eyes.

He has not said or taught that water baptism is a man-made ritual.

Okay, you went to the trouble to go back over his posts and come up with something, so let me just change gears and, instead of debating the exegesis of believers’ posts, let me try to kindly summarize his position:* He believes that infant baptism is a man-made ritual.* He believes that baptism does not wash away sin* He believes that Peter was referring to Spirit baptism in Acts 2:38* He believes that only by faith in Christ, and not through sacraments, may a sinner touch and receive the saving grace of God.

He hasn’t said that baptism is man-made or that water baptism has nothing to do with the baptism commanded by Christ or that going inside a church at all is a bad idea or that the baptism of Christ is purely spiritual and unseen by human eyes.

 

[jmcrae]

No, just show us from his own words that he taught what you said he taughtI understand him just fine. And if you can prove your accusation, go right ahead.Certainly. It distinguishes it from Spirit baptism, mentioned in the verses MDStanzel referenced.As I originally said, he is differing with the Catholic doctrine of the meaning of baptism. He believes, as do most noncatholics, that baptism does not wash away sins.

Which would therefore, logically, make it a sinful thing to do, don’t you think? Because if it is not from God, then it’s either from man or from the Devil.

Actually, I think a genius would realize that he hasn’t taught anything of the sort.He has not said or taught that water baptism is a man-made ritual.

Then he thinks it’s a Devil-made ritual. Same difference, I should think.

Okay, you went to the trouble to go back over his posts and come up with something, so let me just change gears and, instead of debating the exegesis of believers’ posts, let me try to kindly summarize his position:* He believes that infant baptism is a man-made ritual.* He believes that baptism does not wash away sin* He believes that Peter was referring to Spirit baptism in Acts 2:38* He believes that only by faith in Christ, and not through sacraments, may a sinner touch and receive the saving grace of God.

Which is exactly what I’ve been pointing out all this time.

He hasn’t said that baptism is man-made or that water baptism has nothing to do with the baptism commanded by Christ or that going inside a church at all is a bad idea or that the baptism of Christ is purely spiritual and unseen by human eyes.

You’ve just contradicted everything you posted in your list.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Well, we enjoy it, so don’t be such a wet blanket.

That has to be one of the saddest things I’ve ever read, anywhere.

Kevan seems to be implying that division among Christians is a good thing. I hope to God that’s not what he means.

Having different denominations where people can believe different things does not make us free. As Jesus said, it is truth that sets us free.

 

[Kevan]

Kevan seems to be implying that division among Christians is a good thing. I hope to God that’s not what he means.

In my first post I argued that we Protestants are accused of being divided much more than we perceive ourselves to be. From the outside Catholics fulminate about how divided we are supposed to be. The joke you quoted should be read in that context.

 

[Kevan]

"Kevan:

He believes, as do most noncatholics, that baptism does not wash away sins.

Which would therefore, logically, make it a sinful thing to do, don’t you think?

No, jmcrae, logic does not lead to that conclusion at all. He believes that God gave baptism for a different purpose than the one the Catholic church teaches. That would not make baptism “a sinful thing to do.” Practically all noncatholic churches practice baptism, but disagree with the Catholic church’s understanding of it. They do not consider their practice of baptism “a sinful thing to do.”

You’ve just contradicted everything you posted in your list.

Your analytical powers are beyond my ability to fully describe.

 

[jmcrae]

No, jmcrae, logic does not lead to that conclusion at all. He believes that God gave baptism for a different purpose than the one the Catholic church teaches.

We know that God only gives us real things, right? God doesn’t give us symbols - therefore IF baptism is symbolic, THEN it doesn’t come from God.

That would not make baptism “a sinful thing to do.”

It may or may not be sinful in and of itself, but believers is very upset by the idea of people baptising in Church, and he is adamant that people need to recite the Sinner’s Prayer rather than do this (in his view) useless action of “water baptism.”

Practically all noncatholic churches practice baptism,

True

but disagree with the Catholic church’s understanding of it.

Not true. The majority of Protestants who practice baptism believe that it is a Sacrament - that is, that God works through Baptism to wash the soul of the person being baptized from his or her sins - which is the same thing that Catholics believe.

Those Protestants who truly consider baptism to be symbolic usually do not practice it at all. After all, it is only a representation of something that has already happened “for real” when they recited the Sinner’s Prayer - and it’s messy, and very inconvenient.

 

[Kevan]

Those Protestants who truly consider baptism to be symbolic usually do not practice it at all. After all, it is only a representation of something that has already happened “for real” when they recited the Sinner’s Prayer - and it’s messy, and very inconvenient.

Perhaps you have heard of a religious group called “Baptists.” Many of us live in towns or cities where such a church can be found. They are called “Baptists” because of their special interest in baptism. I myself have seen these people perform their baptismal rites, so I can assure you that they do, indeed, use water in the name of the Trinity. And they even call it “baptism.”

And they consider it, to use your words, “only a representation of something that has already happened ‘for real’ when they recited the Sinner’s Prayer.”

I can understand if you’ve never heard of them. I have lived in places where one could drive for blocks and never even see a Baptist church. But they’re on the Internet. Just google the word “baptist” and I’m sure you’ll hit something.

 

[mdstanzel]

Would someone give me BCV so that I can try to begin to understand the justification for the “sinners prayer”. Rejecting works is a direct violation of scriptures and as is baptism. So although I was raised at a early age through high school in the Baptist and Catholic faiths I have never understood how someone would come up with the doctrine of simply praying a simple prayer to accept Jesus in your heart. Especially when scriptures say to seek out your faith with fear and trembling, just to say one. I could fill the thread with much much more but am leaving room for an answer. I know that grace only developed in the 16th century and later further by a man names Smith, if memory serves me correct. Did the Baptists start out originally praying the “sinners prayer” and not baptizing (ironic isn’t it, OXYMORON Baptist don’t baptize ). That is to ask have the Baptists always not believed that baptism is required?

Oh yea. I have lots of baptist in my family but I don’t talk to them much on account that they think the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon”. That’s why I don’t ask them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It helps nothing. More anti-Protestant bigotry and misinformation. Be careful when you accuse others of spin.

No one comes into the church of my tradition quickly or without reflection, either. Youth must go through confirmation classes, parents wanting their children baptized must go through classes and discernments, and those transferring their membership from another tradition must also go through membership classes.

Your use of quotes around “altar call”, as well as your tip of the hat, shows disdain and disrespect. It also shows that you are not as knowledgable about some Protestant traditions as you think you do.

As a former Methodist, I am familiar with Methodist baptism, communion and confirmation classes having been through all of this personally.

My parents still attend the Methodist church while my sister is now non-denominational having been baptized on three separate occasions.

I have a copy of “This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion” on my bookshelf along with my United Methodist Hymnal. Additionally, I have had opportunity to discuss the Wesleys and their theology on numerous occasions with my father in recent years since my conversion.

My comment about “altar calls” was directed to Kevan who is a fundamentalist of unknown denomination. I’ve been to the Billy Graham crusades and gone down to the dais with everyone else. I’ve prayed the “sinner’s prayer” in the privacy of my own home along with more televangelists than I can name. I can practically recite “The Four Spiritual Laws” by heart…

I am perhaps more knowledgeable about some Protestant traditions than you think I am.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps you have heard of a religious group called “Baptists.”

I have. (They aren’t very common in Canada, and indeed probably not above the Dixie line; they are specific to the southern United States.)

The ones around here consider baptism to be “optional,” and because of the fact that it’s darned cold around here for most of the year, the majority of Baptists that I know have never actually been baptized. But you’re right - the Baptist religion is one among the very few Protestant denominations that see baptism as a symbol, and yet actually practice it in their churches.

(I don’t think believers is a Baptist, though. I suspect he is more likely to be affiliated with some variety of either Campbellite or Brethren camp preacher or house church, which forbid the use of “vain symbols” in their holy meetings - he also displays some of the characteristics of the Seventh Day Adventist movement).

 

[mdstanzel]

I don’t know if you guys are reading my posts, but believer is absolutely for sure not a Campbellite. No doubt at all. Because he’s an apostate.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know if you guys are reading my posts, but believer is absolutely for sure not a Campbellite. No doubt at all. Because he’s an apostate.

Well, of course he’s an apostate - who isn’t?

From the Campbellites, though? How do you figure?

 

[mdstanzel]

That’s where we came from. And a true Campbellite would never worship with a Baptist or some other “so called denomination”. They actually believe and teach that they are the “one true Church” and unless you are a member of the “church of Christ” yoiu have no hope of salvation. So It took reading through one post to identify that he is an apostate . My father in law was an elder at a campbellite congregation and 2 of my wife’s brothers are campbellite preachers. I practiced it for 17 years before turning white when I discovered the Early Church Fathers.

So he’s an apostate in the eyes of the church of Christ. And if they were here you’d know it. “Christian Only”, no such thing as a denomination, 33 A.D.

There is a whole group of us that ended up converting to Catholicism upon learning the real historical truth of the early Church.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s where we came from. And a true Campbellite would never worship with a Baptist or some other “so called denomination”. They actually believe and teach that they are the “one true Church” and unless you are a member of the “church of Christ” yoiu have no hope of salvation. So It took reading through one post to identify that he is an apostate .

Ah, I see.

My father in law was an elder at a campbellite congregation and 2 of my wife’s brothers are campbellite preachers. I practiced it for 17 years before turning white when I discovered the Early Church Fathers.

They have that effect on a lot of people.

So he’s an apostate in the eyes of the church of Christ. And if they were here you’d know it. “Christian Only”, no such thing as a denomination, 33 A.D.

That part, they got right - it’s the part about “no creed but Christ,” and “everybody equal in the eyes of the Lord” that they mess up on - there were definitely creedal statements, doctrinal systems, and Bishops, priests and other “high and mighty types.”

There is a whole group of us that ended up converting to Catholicism upon learning the real historical truth of the early Church.

Welcome home!! :extrahappy: :dancing: :clapping:

 

[mdstanzel]

Thanks. It’s good to be home again. With all the aches and pains at my ever increasing age, I have need somewhere to put it. I offer it up now. Isn’t is wonderful to suffer with a purpose.

 

[Kay_Cee]

In my first post I argued that we Protestants are accused of being divided much more than we perceive ourselves to be. From the outside Catholics fulminate about how divided we are supposed to be. The joke you quoted should be read in that context.

I don’t consider divisions among Christians a joking matter.

Are you saying then that such division is a bad thing? You seemed to imply earlier that it was good that Christians had the freedom of different denominations to choose from. You did say,

“We Protestants divide because we can. It’s a big world with plenty of room and there’s little to be gained by forcing people together who don’t have to be together. Just let them move freely and associate howsoever they may.” (post 22)

It seems to me we should associate the way Christ wants us to, not “howsoever they may.” And it was Christ’s prayer that we all be one.

 

[Kevan]

As I stated earlier, spiritual unity is important, organizational unity is not. People may belong to the same organization without possessing the unity for which the Lord prayed, and people may belong to distinct organizations (as we do) and still have the unity for which the Lord prayed.