Baptism

[Amo_a_Jesus]

Thank you itwin nice ilustration, Thank you Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

He’s not really lying. He’s just condensing a very complicated topic in a very brief statement. I got this from an apparently Catholic site:

There are certain sacramental practices the Church has always and everywhere done, for example, she has always and everywhere used bread and wine in the celebration of the Eucharist and used water for baptism. Beyond that, developing a theology of seven sacraments took quite some time. As a matter of fact, what we today call, sacramentals, would also have been considered sacraments in the early Church. The esteemed, St. Jerome believed there were as many sacraments as there are words! One of our Church Fathers, St. Peter Damian commonly held there were 12 sacraments. Peter Abelard, in the early 12th century began distinguishing between “minor” and “major” sacraments. It wasn’t until around 1150 that Peter Lombard first began talking of 7 sacraments, and the Council of Florence in 1439 officially confirmed there were seven sacraments; however, it did not name what they were. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t until the Council of Trent (1551) that defined the seven sacraments.
​

I’ve listened to the pastor’s message. He is NOT saying that Catholics invented sacraments in 1439. He’s saying that the Catholic Church decided that there were 7 sacraments at the Council of Florence in 1439. That is historical fact apparently.

Yes but when they give him this video to prove to him that infant baptism was invented in the 1400’s it is clear by both the words used and the culture if Calvary they are being dishonest.

Calvary Chapel is notoriously anti catholic.

 

[ltwin]

Yes but when they give him this video to prove to him that infant baptism was invented in the 1400’s it is clear by both the words used and the culture if Calvary they are being dishonest.

Calvary Chapel is notoriously anti catholic.

I’m not going to judge motives. They did not say infant baptism was invented in the 1400s. They said the Catholic Church decided there was 7 sacraments in the 1400s, which is apparently true. I don’t see how that’s being “dishonest.”

If you listen to the audio, you’ll see that the speaker starts talking about the meaning of “ordinance” and “sacrament.” He then states that Protestants generally have 2 sacraments, while Catholics have 7.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m not going to judge motives. They did not say infant baptism was invented in the 1400s. They said the Catholic Church decided there was 7 sacraments in the 1400s, which is apparently true. I don’t see how that’s being “dishonest.”

Ok…

You don’t see how if someone is debating infant baptism and the opponent says “watch this then you will see” and provides this video is dishonest.

I mean it’s at the very least academically dishonest.

 

[ltwin]

Ok…

You don’t see how if someone is debating infant baptism and the opponent says “watch this then you will see” and provides this video is dishonest.

I mean it’s at the very least academically dishonest.

Really?

First, I don’t see anything in Amo a Jesus’ comments that indicate they were sent the video to “prove” that infant baptism was invented in 1439.

The only thing Amo a Jesus said, and I quote:

that what this pastor say in his “study” they send me as a s reply of a message is sent to this church where i ask them where in the Bible say not to Baptism Infants

As I understand this, Amo a Jesus asked the church where does the Bible say not to baptize infants. In response, the church sent Amo a Jesus the sermon audio, which is about Calvary Chapel’s position on baptism. The sermon is trying to show that Calvary Chapel’s view on baptism is scriptural. It is not trying to prove that infant baptism was invented in the 1400s, and it doesn’t even suggest that.

I don’t see how you jumped to the conclusion that the church was trying to “prove” that infant baptism was relatively recent innovation. All I see is someone asking a church to prove their position from Scripture and in response being provided a video that lays out that church’s position on baptism with a brief lesson in the etymology of the word “sacrament” thrown in for good measure.

 

[Brandall]

Oh yeah and they “recommit their lives to Christ” over and over.

They believe you are saved once when you pray the sinners pray. You get a nice emotional high there.

Then baptism. Diddo.

Then you just head the altar call by “recommitting your life” over and over and over.

Wow, you really want to be known as one that ridicules someone rededicating their lives to Christ? We all have ups and downs in our Christian lives. Of the things I grew to dislike in the Baptist Church, this was not one of them.

 

[Amo_a_Jesus]

The message i sent was , that i took my daughter once to that church because she like it, and while i was waiting in the cafeteria, they were doing a child presentation to the lord, and the same pastor states… we don’t baptize kids just because we don’t see it anywhere in the Bible, and that was i write to them, i don’t think a least for me, that the “I don’t see it in the Bible” comment is enough to prove your point of view, that is why they send those audios

 

[Brandall]

I am not sure what you mean by proper time and method.

From a Catholic perspective, the proper time is ASAP after birth because Baptism is the First Sacrament of Initiation and Baptism is required for salvation.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

A bit of a tangent but honestly, I was looking for a place to interject it. It appears that it is a standard practice for Catechumens to be baptized at the Easter Vigil. If I’m wrong about that, my apologies but it is the practice at my church and I’ve heard mentioned that it is the practice at other churches.

If baptism is so important, why make them wait?

 

[believerdoc]

I have to plead ignorance about Baptists, but I know that some protestant denominations practice baptism by immersion. Pouring water over someone’s head doesn’t make the grade.

This is not an accurate statement. While immersion is , we believe, the mode used in scripture pouring would be considered a valid alternative. Usually it is considered valid if water flows over the crown of the head as in immersion and pouring and done with proper intent and in the name of the Most Holy Trinity. Sprinkling and touching of water to the forehead is not generally considered valid. However Protestant Churches that do not practice infant baptism would not consider baptism other than Believers’ Baptism valid.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Wow, you really want to be known as one that ridicules someone rededicating their lives to Christ? We all have ups and downs in our Christian lives. Of the things I grew to dislike in the Baptist Church, this was not one of them.

Where was the ridicule?

 

[Jon_S_1]

The message i sent was , that i took my daughter once to that church because she like it, and while i was waiting in the cafeteria, they were doing a child presentation to the lord, and the same pastor states… we don’t baptize kids just because we don’t see it anywhere in the Bible, and that was i write to them, i don’t think a least for me, that the “I don’t see it in the Bible” comment is enough to prove your point of view, that is why they send those audios

And you also don’t see child dedication either!

 

[believerdoc]

Jon, thanks for the perspective on this.

For those who have been kibitzing, I am convert to Catholicism 1983. I used to be a Southern Baptist, and was Baptized in a Baptist church. when I converted, my Baptist method of baptism was never questioned, nor the intent or belief doctrine as to what a Baptism is. It was accepted because of the Trinity formula it was administered under. As a Catholic, I have learned that the true meaning, concept, or doctrine about Baptism is so, so much more than the limited understanding of some Protestant faiths. I guess this is why they are called Protestant (disobedient children) but still brothers and sisters in Christ.

I must disagree to your final statement. To be disobedient to someone or something you must first accept and believe that that person or thing has authority over you. Since we do not believe or accept your position that your church or pope has authority no one is being a disobedient child. I will agree that I prefer the term reformers as that was Luther’s initial desire; to reform the very corrupt chucrh of his time.

 

[Jon_S_1]

A bit of a tangent but honestly, I was looking for a place to interject it. It appears that it is a standard practice for Catechumens to be baptized at the Easter Vigil. If I’m wrong about that, my apologies but it is the practice at my church and I’ve heard mentioned that it is the practice at other churches.

If baptism is so important, why make them wait?

So that they are able to learn about baptism and the church they are entering. In the Early church the catechumens waited 3 years typically. Now it is just a few months. Of course their is nothing barring baptism immediately or at another time should the need arise.

 

[believerdoc]

And you also don’t see child dedication either!

I beg to differ; we see Jesus presented in the temple as an infant. Protestant dedications rites are in thanksgiving for the gift of new life and for the parents and congregation to commit to the nurture and Christian upbringing of the child. Remember Jesus said to suffer the little children unto the Lord.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I beg to differ; we see Jesus presented in the temple as an infant. Protestant dedications rites are in thanksgiving for the gift of new life and for the parents and congregation to commit to the nurture and Christian upbringing of the child. Remember Jesus said to suffer the little children unto the Lord.

Hmmmmm. So Protestants go and present the child on day 8 for circumcision?

All I am saying is that nowhere in Christian history was this “child dedication” practiced until the last 50-100 years.

Protestants love to tell Catholics our practices are not scriptural. A great example would be prayers to Saints.

Catholics then point to numerous verses on the matter and Protestants say no it’s not explicit enough.

Then for their own traditions they do the same thing. Grasping at verses and concepts such as “Jesus loves the children”

Yes Jesus loves the children, that does not equate to take them before the church and have the congregation and parents make certain vows.

Now…

Don’t get me wrong, I see no problem with the practice, and I think it is a reconnection psychologically to do what is on their heart by God to commit their kids to him. It is something that was lost when they rejected infant baptism but it is still written on their hearts. The Holy Spirit is prompting them to return to the sacrament but their theology doesn’t allow it so they create something else.

I only hope they realize that it is a tradition.

As a catholic I don’t have a problem with tradition.

 

[BeProfOSX]

A little background info from an insider…

There are “Capital-B” Baptists and “little-b” baptists.

Capital-B Baptists, generally, will baptize only by immersion and then, customarily, one time backwards. There are Captial-B Baptists who do it three times or one time forwards, but that tends to be, as I understand it, in a cultural context where most of the people are converts from Orthodoxy. Captial-B Baptists are, as the term implies, Baptists. The sign on the front of the building will usually say “Baptist” and, even if it doesn’t, the congregation will be associated (either formally or informally) with some Baptist denomination or movement.

Little-b baptists agree with the Captial-B Baptists that baptism can only be validly administered to those who have publicly expressed a personal faith in Christ, but they aren’t nearly as particular about the method or the mode of baptism. Yes, the vast majority of them dunk, but not all do. In this camp you find Anabaptists, mainly, as well as Pentecostals and a great portion of the larger Evangelical wing of Christianity.

Speaking of Evangelicalism in particular, you have four broad camps:

1 - Capital-B Baptists and little-b baptists comprise, I would dare say, the majority of Evangelicalism.

2 - You also have a sizeable minority of traditionally minded “break-aways” from mainline Protestant denominations, like the LCMS and PCA, who generally practice infant baptism.

3 - You then finally have a smaller minority of denominations like the Church of the Nazarene and the Evangelical Free Church that will practice either and leave it up to the individual to decide for himself and his own house what to do.

4 - Finally you have the Salvation Army (and I think a very few others) who do not practice baptism at all, since they do not see themselves as a church.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Because some Protestants completely misunderstand and pervert baptism, making it a work you have to do once you have gained enough knowledge, shed enough tears, feel sorry enough for your sins, be changed enough inwardly… Once youre “enough” enough you go ahead and do this work.

Get a nice emotional high, then do baptism, then once that emotional high wears off what are you gonna do? Get high again and do another baptism.

I have spoken to some who have been baptized 6 or 7 times. This is a perversion of the gospel, making it just something you do to rededicate your life to Christ or something.

Oh yeah and they “recommit their lives to Christ” over and over.

They believe you are saved once when you pray the sinners pray. You get a nice emotional high there.

Then baptism. Diddo.

Then you just head the altar call by “recommitting your life” over and over and over.

Wow, you really want to be known as one that ridicules someone rededicating their lives to Christ? We all have ups and downs in our Christian lives. Of the things I grew to dislike in the Baptist Church, this was not one of them.

Where was the ridicule?

Jon and House—I don’t mean to be picking on either of you, but I agree with Brandall’s post to a degree in that both your posts seemed dismissive of the depth of real devotion common in the Evangelical practice of rededication. Of all the things we can disagree about as Christians, I’m frankly baffled when I see non-Evangelical Christians dismiss the Evangelical’s rededication to Christ as if it’s just some fluffy, inconsequential experience.

 

[AbideWithMe]

A little background info from an insider…

There are “Capital-B” Baptists and “little-b” baptists.

Capital-B Baptists, generally, will baptize only by immersion and then, customarily, one time backwards. There are Captial-B Baptists who do it three times or one time forwards, but that tends to be, as I understand it, in a cultural context where most of the people are converts from Orthodoxy. Captial-B Baptists are, as the term implies, Baptists. The sign on the front of the building will usually say “Baptist” and, even if it doesn’t, the congregation will be associated (either formally or informally) with some Baptist denomination or movement.

Little-b baptists agree with the Captial-B Baptists that baptism can only be validly administered to those who have publicly expressed a personal faith in Christ, but they aren’t nearly as particular about the method or the mode of baptism. Yes, the vast majority of them dunk, but not all do. In this camp you find Anabaptists, mainly, as well as Pentecostals and a great portion of the larger Evangelical wing of Christianity.

Speaking of Evangelicalism in particular, you have four broad camps:

1 - Capital-B Baptists and little-b baptists comprise, I would dare say, the majority of Evangelicalism.

2 - You also have a sizeable minority of traditionally minded “break-aways” from mainline Protestant denominations, like the LCMS and PCA, who generally practice infant baptism.

3 - You then finally have a smaller minority of denominations like the Church of the Nazarene and the Evangelical Free Church that will practice either and leave it up to the individual to decide for himself and his own house what to do.

4 - Finally you have the Salvation Army (and I think a very few others) who do not practice baptism at all, since they do not see themselves as a church.

Getting back on topic–good post. I grew up in the number 3 type of churches, and I was baptized as an infant.

 

[wmscott]

I must disagree to your final statement. To be disobedient to someone or something you must first accept and believe that that person or thing has authority over you. Since we do not believe or accept your position that your church or pope has authority no one is being a disobedient child. I will agree that I prefer the term reformers as that was Luther’s initial desire; to reform the very corrupt chucrh of his time.

So looking at the definition of Protestantism below where did I misrepresent you. The thing is you are 500 years removed from the original “Protest” or “Disobedience”. No one is arguing that at the time the Catholic Church had corrupt “Sinners” in charge and making a mess of things.

So do you believe that the “very corrupt church of his time” is still practicing that corruption?

However the Christian faith would have been better served if the reformation came from within.

A small history lesson, until the reformation the only Christian religion that existed was that of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. Both of whom have apostolic succession back to St Peter.

Protestantism is one of the major divisions within Christianity. It has been defined as “any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth” and, more broadly, to mean Christianity outside “of an Orthodox or Catholic church”.

The term protestant was not initially applied to the reformers, but later was used to describe all groups protesting Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Since that time, the term protestant has been used in many different senses, often as a general term merely to signify Christians who belong to none of the churches of Catholic tradition.

Since we are all children of God, since Christ established one Church, Protestantism broke away from the one Church Christ established, where did I misrepresent you as a “disobedient child”

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon and House—I don’t mean to be picking on either of you, but I agree with Brandall’s post to a degree in that both your posts seemed dismissive of the depth of real devotion common in the Evangelical practice of rededication. Of all the things we can disagree about as Christians, I’m frankly baffled when I see non-Evangelical Christians dismiss the Evangelical’s rededication to Christ as if it’s just some fluffy, inconsequential experience.

Well,

I see how my post was taken that way and want to apologize. It was not my intent to ridicule the practice, but instead to point out the often times inconsistency in following your emotions in regard to these things. In my long tenure in Evangelicalism, I rededicated my life twice, each time very sincerely, I also saw many people due this constantly being caught up in the moment as opposed to truly conversion of heart. In time, many of these emotional following folks, walked away as the emotional side lost its flair.

It was this latter group I spoke of.

I believe, as catholic doctrine teaches, that conversion occurs daily, as we continually must choose Christ above ourselves, we must “rededicate” our lives every day in this sense, and I am sure you all agree.

I appreciate it when I am shown my posts border or cross over on uncharitable so thanks for pointing it out.