Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary

[tabcom]

I want to state that on a similar thread regarding infant baptism, I came to the following conclusion:

RCC believes:

1. Proselyte Baptism is an ordinance.(Col. 2-11)
2. Infants are baptized to atone for their sin nature. (Rom 5:12)

I believe:

1. Ordinances, such as proselyte baptism, are done away with. (Col. 2:14)
2. Infants must come to an age of reason, that is, understand the difference between good and evil before they can atone for their sin nature.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The English word is spelled baptize not baptise.

Technically, the English (British) word is spelled “baptise” while the American word is spelled “baptize.” Other than that, I agree with your whole post. Spot on!

 

[mgrfin]

Five weeks of age is kind of young to be confessing Christ. Though there is only one baptism I believe that it must be for those who confess Christ. I have had the gift of the Holy Spirit for almost one year. The saving baptism (baptism of the Holy Spirit) and the gift of the Holy Spirit are distinctive from each other. Even though my sins are in remmission I still do make mistakes.

Am I missing something here?

Do you baptise: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirt”.

Or are you saying you baptize just in the name of the Holy Spirit?

peace

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’ve heard that even though it is quite rare and hardly done that way that it is possible for a Catholic priest to baptize by immersion.

Is this true?

 

[savedsinner]

I’ve heard that even though it is quite rare and hardly done that way that it is possible for a Catholic priest to baptize by immersion.

Is this true?

Sure, some churches have full immersion baptismal pools.

 

[YADA]

I’ve heard that even though it is quite rare and hardly done that way that it is possible for a Catholic priest to baptize by immersion.

Is this true?

Yes, many churches have baptismal fonts large enough for full immersion…or large enough for people to stand in even if the water is still poured over the person’s head…

The Didache [one of the earliest Christian Writings] describes the various methods for baptizing…includes fulll immersion, pouring water over the head and even sprinkling…

One does not need an ocean to validly baptize…just a small amount of water…

 

[VociMike]

Water, At one month of age how could you confess your faith in Christ? At one month of age you could not have sinned yet…baptism remmisses sins.

John the Baptist confessed his faith in Christ while still in the womb. You have too limited an understanding of who it is who may receive faith.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I’ve heard that even though it is quite rare and hardly done that way that it is possible for a Catholic priest to baptize by immersion.

Is this true?

It is true and it is not that rare. We baptize adults by immersion in our church, and even children. However, babies are baptized by pouring. Many Catholic churches, esp. new ones have large baptismal fonts for immersion. And our baptismal font has running water.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I’ve heard that even though it is quite rare and hardly done that way that it is possible for a Catholic priest to baptize by immersion.

Is this true?

The Church has always recognised full immersion as being a valid form of baptism. Where forbidden this is purely a disciplinary rule to avoid creating the sense that other forms of baptism are invalid or inferior.

John Smyth, the founder of the baptists, didn’t practise baptism by immersion. However he taught that infant baptism needed to be repeated after the person came of age. It was a natural step to move from “infant baptism is invalid” to “ours is extra-valid because it is done by full immersion”, which happened a few decades later.

 

[mgrfin]

I want to state that on a similar thread regarding infant baptism, I came to the following conclusion:

RCC believes:

1. Proselyte Baptism is an ordinance.(Col. 2-11)
2. Infants are baptized to atone for their sin nature. (Rom 5:12)

I believe:

1. Ordinances, such as proselyte baptism, are done away with. (Col. 2:14)
2. Infants must come to an age of reason, that is, understand the difference between good and evil before they can atone for their sin nature.

I didn’t know Catholics had “ordinances”. I assume by ‘ordiance’ you mean ‘sacrament’.

Children are baptised in the Catholic Church for the same reason adults are: to give our souls the new life of sanctifying grace by which we become children of God and heirs of heaven.

marantha

 

[Pax]

I want to state that on a similar thread regarding infant baptism, I came to the following conclusion:

RCC believes:

1. Proselyte Baptism is an ordinance.(Col. 2-11)
2. Infants are baptized to atone for their sin nature. (Rom 5:12)

I believe:

1. Ordinances, such as proselyte baptism, are done away with. (Col. 2:14)
2. Infants must come to an age of reason, that is, understand the difference between good and evil before they can atone for their sin nature.

I do not know how you can arrive at your conclusions based upon the thread to which you make reference. Catholics do not believe baptism to be an ordinance. Baptism is a sacrament/New Covenant oath instituted by Christ to give grace. The ordinances refered to in Col 2:14 refer to the OT law especially circumcision. This is clear from the text.

Neither infants or adults can atone for original sin. This was accomplished by Jesus on the cross and is applied to us in baptism. Baptism gives us the forgiveness of personal sin and the remission of original sin. Through baptism we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and we are made a new creation…we are made adopted sons and daughters of God. It is all pure gift…we cannot atone for our sins in the eternal sense before God. Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection provide that atonement, and that is why he is the one mediator of the New Covenant.

 

[savedsinner]

I do not know how you can arrive at your conclusions based upon the thread to which you make reference. Catholics do not believe baptism to be an ordinance. Baptism is a sacrament/New Covenant oath instituted by Christ to give grace. The ordinances refered to in Col 2:14 refer to the OT law especially circumcision. This is clear from the text.

Neither infants or adults can atone for original sin. This was accomplished by Jesus on the cross and is applied to us in baptism. Baptism gives us the forgiveness of personal sin and the remission of original sin. Through baptism we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and we are made a new creation…we are made adopted sons and daughters of God. It is all pure gift…we cannot atone for our sins in the eternal sense before God. Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection provide that atonement, and that is why he is the one mediator of the New Covenant.

I think that he tried to equate the sacraments and such as ordinances a long time ago in a thread he had started.
He is using that as a fact, and building on that as if it is a proven point now.

 

[tabcom]

IMHO, I believe water baptism is a tradition that has no value next to the power of the resurrection of Christ – which dwells in the believer right here, right now.

Allow me to explain . . .

Paul’s letter to the Colossians

The Heresy at Colosse.

Gnostic philosophical attitude was creeping into the church.
That is, a philosophy to bring men to a knowledge of the truth. This gnosis is not intellectual apprehension, but the enlightenment derived from mystical experience.

What Paul was up against were baby believers that unconsciously merged earlier beliefs with Christian concepts. Paul also alludes to these Gnostic influences in his writing to the church in Corinth. The Colossian heresy combined Jewish and Hellenistic elements.

For instance the emphasis on ‘wisdom’ and ‘knowledge’, of cosmic powers and the abasement of the body reflect Greek thought. Some Jewish converts probably brought their mixture of rituals Judaism and developed it further after they became Christians. Paul, as has been his strategy, takes their terminology and develops the doctrine of the Cosmic Christ. Any teaching which detracts from the centrality of Christ under the pretense of leading men to maturity and perfection is a perversion that threatens the very essence of the faith.

Col 2:8
See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.

Paul does not condemn the Gnostic and Jewish tradition’s, he contrasts them with what supercedes them, Christ.

Col 2:11
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.

‘not administered by hand’ is a quasi-mystical term to contrast the institututions and rituals of the old covenant. The true circumcision is Christ’s death and resurrection. (Phil 3:3 – For we are the circumcision, we who worship through the Spirit of God, who boast in Christ Jesus and do not put our confidence in flesh)

In the OT, ‘stripping off the carnal body’ symbolized defeat. In other words, the rituals have been defeated by the fulfillment of Christ.

Col 2:12
You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

**In light of the context of the chapter, could it be that the type of baptism that Paul is referring to is the baptism of death (MK 10:38, Lk 12:50)?

Mark 10:38
Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

Lk 12:50
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!

Circumcision here is the death of Christ, by which he severed from the old age, cleansing of sin, and reconciliation to God (Deut 30:6 Jer 4:4). It is to this that Christian baptism is to be related.
**
Deut 30:6
The LORD, your God, will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, that you may love the LORD, your God, with all your heart and all your soul, and so may live.

Jer 4:4
For the sake of the LORD, be circumcised, remove the foreskins of your hearts,

Col 2:13
And even when you were dead (in) transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions;

Speaking to the gentiles, who were excluded from the people of God.

Col 2:14
obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross;

the original greek word from which ‘legal claims’ is translated is dogma. Paul, a Jew, tells the Gentiles in the Church, you who were once excluded are now included through Christ.

He continues . . .

Col 2:20
If you died with Christ to the elemental powers of the world, why do you submit to regulations as if you were still living in the world?
Col 2:21
“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”
Col 2:22
These are all things destined to perish with use; they accord with human precepts and teachings.
Col 2:23
While they have a semblance of wisdom in rigor of devotion and self-abasement (and) severity to the body, they are of no value against gratification of the flesh.

 

[clmowry]

Let’s see.

non-Catholic A: Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary.

non-Catholic B: Baptism is not necessary at all.

Let’s here it for individual interpretation of scripture as the “sure” rule of faith.

Whoot!

Well at least they can agree that the Catholic Church is wrong and, of course, that’s what’s really important.

Chuck

 

[Pax]

tabcom,

I disagree…let’s take only the following for now:

Col 2:11-14 says:
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

The problems with your understanding are as follows:

1. There is nothing in this passage or any other passage of scripture that refers to baptism as an ordinance. Likewise, the Catholic Church does not refer to it as an ordinance. It is a covenant oath instituted by Jesus Christ himself.
2. The passage clearly speaks of circumcision of the flesh which Paul has given a lot of time to in his letters. Paul is speaking against the teaching of the Judaizers in Colossae just as he did, but in greater detail, in Romans and Galatians.
3. The ordinance which is clearly done away with is circumcision of the flesh. Baptism is cited as a replacement that is in the order of a spiritual circumcision that “puts off the body of the flesh.” This is in keeping with what Paul says about living in the flesh vs. living in the Spirit, and baptism brings with it the gift of the Holy Spirit.
4. Verse 13 says, " And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,"

Everyone is dead in trespasses and “the uncircumcised” refers to the gentiles. Then notice that the verse says that “God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,” This is a direct reference to the action of baptism which is a New Testament sacramental oath.

1. It is “the cancellation of the bond that stood against us” that is done away with. “The bond that stood against us” is a reference to circumcision and the OT law that separated the Jews and Gentiles. It is not a reference to NT Christian baptism. Paul’s epistles make it clear that the “legal requirements” that are nailed to the cross are the OT law and circumcision.

 

[tabcom]

tabcom,

I disagree…let’s take only the following for now:

1. There is nothing in this passage or any other passage of scripture that refers to baptism as an ordinance.

It is most constructive to itemize a list, thank you for providing one.

To clarify. I am referring specifically to water baptism. In addition, by ordinance, I mean a tradition that has evolved into a ritual.

You are correct, there is no passage in scripture that refers to water baptism as a tradition that has evolved into a ritual.

 

[tabcom]

tabcom,

I disagree…let’s take only the following for now:

Col 2:11
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;

1. The passage clearly speaks of circumcision of the flesh which Paul has given a lot of time to in his letters. Paul is speaking against the teaching of the Judaizers in Colossae just as he did, but in greater detail, in Romans and Galatians.

And what does circumcision of the flesh mean?

How is circumcision of the flesh different from the circumcision of the foreskin?

 

[tabcom]

tabcom,

I disagree…let’s take only the following for now:

1. The ordinance which is clearly done away with is circumcision of the flesh. Baptism is cited as a replacement that is in the order of a spiritual circumcision that “puts off the body of the flesh.” This is in keeping with what Paul says about living in the flesh vs. living in the Spirit, and baptism brings with it the gift of the Holy Spirit.

What confuses me about your logic is that you are willing to throw out the ritual of circumcision, but you hang on to your ritual of water baptism.

At this point, I feel it is worth repeating . . .

In light of the context of the chapter (and we now agree that the context of ritual circumcision has been done away with in favor of a spiritual one), could it be that the type of baptism that Paul is referring to is the baptism of death (MK 10:38, Lk 12:50)?

Mark 10:38
Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

Lk 12:50
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!

Here lies the crux of descent. I believe that coming alive in the Spirit can only be obtained by crucifying\circumcising\blood baptism of self.

 

[Bishopite]

Let’s see.

non-Catholic A: Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary.

non-Catholic B: Baptism is not necessary at all.

Let’s here it for individual interpretation of scripture as the “sure” rule of faith.

Whoot!

Well at least they can agree that the Catholic Church is wrong and, of course, that’s what’s really important.

Chuck

Exactly. The only “dogma” sola scriptura’s have is that they know infallibly that Catholicism is incorrect.

 

[tabcom]

tabcom,

I disagree…let’s take only the following for now:

1. . . . .

I believe I stated clearly and concisely stated my opinion to your point #4 in my reply to your point #3.