Baptists and the Necessity of Immersion

[Pixie_Dust]

Peace and God Bless to all!!! I am directing this to Scottm who is looking to become more Catholic (I will be praying for your coming home to Rome!!) You need to read a short book called where we got the Bible. I cannot rember the author but I am sure you can google it. This book was written by a convert to the Catholic Church. His research into the book lead to him seeing the flaws of all Protestant churches and finding the fullness of salvation in the Catholic CHurch. Christ speaks of the CHurch being his bride in the BIble!! How could this CHurch not appear until the 1600’s?? He promised to send His spirit to lead us in the fullness of truth. The only CHurch that can honsestly trace its roots back to Christ is the Roman Catholic CHurch. THere are many anti-Catholics out there that make outlandish and untrue attacks against our wonderful faith, but if you do some research and look for educated Catholics that can refure ALL of there attacks you will find the peace of Christ in his true Bride, the Roman Catholic Church.

Peace and God BLess you on your Way!!!

Where We Got the Bible by Henry G. Graham can be read it its entirety online.

 

[gelsbern]

But the “Baptism of John” isn’t the same as Christian Baptism, according to Acts 19.

If someone decides to join the Baptist church and they’ve been baptized in a Presbyterian or Methodist church, why are they required to be re-baptized?

Actually they aren’t. Well rather, any Christian who has received baptism using the trinitarian formula i.e. are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are considered validly baptized in the eyes of the Church. The denominations you mentioned use the trinitarian form, and therefore they are not required to be re-baptized as the Church states in the Creed “We acknowledge ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins…”

After a protestant is baptized, they in fact, for a brief period of time are a member of the Catholic Church.

I don’t have the time at the moment, but if you wish I will provide references to all this.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Actually they aren’t. Well rather, any Christian who has received baptism using the trinitarian formula i.e. are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are considered validly baptized in the eyes of the Church. The denominations you mentioned use the trinitarian form, and therefore they are not required to be re-baptized as the Church states in the Creed “We acknowledge ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins…”

After a protestant is baptized, they in fact, for a brief period of time are a member of the Catholic Church.

I don’t have the time at the moment, but if you wish I will provide references to all this.

I’m talking about in the Baptist church, not the Catholic Church. A Methodist who is baptized by sprinkling or pouring water over their head using the Trinitarian formula would still need to be re-baptized by immersion, should they wish to become a member of a Baptist church, even though Baptists don’t believe that baptism does anything and is not necessary for salvation.

 

[boppaid]

Households were larger and included servants and their families. You give examples of people with no infants in their households. Again, you equivocate. The very word “household” leaves the door open for “infants.”

Would your 4 year old be considered eligible for baptism on your terms?

First of all, you say “eligible for baptism on your terms”. I just want to clarify that I am Catholic. I do have conflicting thoughts, though, sometimes on infant vs believer’s baptism…especially as it relates in scripture.

That said, it doesn’t matter if it leaves the door “open” for the POSSIBILITY that infants were baptised. These were descriptive sentences telling about events that occured. Historical accounts. They did not elaborate. Babies being baptised is never specifically addressed. What scripture does specifically say, many times, is that they believed then they were baptized. This is why I struggle w/ what is right…believer’s vs infant baptism.

 

[mercygate]

First of all, you say “eligible for baptism on your terms”. I just want to clarify that I am Catholic. I do have conflicting thoughts, though, sometimes on infant vs believer’s baptism…especially as it relates in scripture.

That said, it doesn’t matter if it leaves the door “open” for the POSSIBILITY that infants were baptised. These were descriptive sentences telling about events that occured. Historical accounts. They did not elaborate. Babies being baptised is never specifically addressed. What scripture does specifically say, many times, is that they believed then they were baptized. This is why I struggle w/ what is right…believer’s vs infant baptism.

Agreed: Scripture is NOT absolutely clear. If it were, the matter would not arise for discussion. But the actual practice of the early Church WAS to baptize infants. The scriptural texts not only do not DENY the practice, there is reason to interpret those “household” passages as ADMITTING the practice – especially in conjunction with the circumcision references.

Anyway: we’re off topic here.

 

[Brendan]

So you say. The Bible says otherwise.

Really? Could you quote exactly where it says that ‘Households’ excludes Infants?

 

[boppaid]

Agreed: Scripture is NOT absolutely clear. If it were, the matter would not arise for discussion. But the actual practice of the early Church WAS to baptize infants. The scriptural texts not only do not DENY the practice, there is reason to interpret those “household” passages as ADMITTING the practice – especially in conjunction with the circumcision references. .

See, I disagree. I believe scripture is quite clear on them believing first, then they are baptized. Do you find that unclear? What exactly do you believe is unclear. The only thing I find unclear is the part about entire households since it doesn’t specify the ages. The part that seems overwhelmingly clear to me, though, is that they always believed first.

 

[mercygate]

See, I disagree. I believe scripture is quite clear on them believing first, then they are baptized. Do you find that unclear? What exactly do you believe is unclear. The only thing I find unclear is the part about entire households since it doesn’t specify the ages. The part that seems overwhelmingly clear to me, though, is that they always believed first.

Since the subapostolic Church deemed infant baptism appropriate, and since the “households” passages certainly allow for infant baptism and the circumcision parallel Paul points out admits of infants, and since the FIRST mention of infant Baptism in a council occurs in 250 A.D, where the question is “Should we withhold baptism until the 8th day”, I go with the practice of the apostolic and sub-apostolic Church. The Church has the authority to establish the discipline of sacraments. This is a point of discipline well supported by the full context of Scripture, history, faith and practice.

 

[brosam]

Really? Could you quote exactly where it says that ‘Households’ excludes Infants?

This is the second time you’ve told the lie that I’m making the argument that “households” excludes children.

Are you really that afraid of being honest?

 

[brosam]

original sin, its effects on the souls of all people, and the necessity of baptism for its removal. Genesis 3:16-24

Actually, Genesis 3:16-24 says nothing at all about baptism.

Romans 5:12-19

Nothing about baptism there.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22

Again, nothing at all about baptism.

Galatians 3:27.

And what is your point with this verse?

First, the spiritual (though not physical) effects of original sin are removed from the soul.

And you’re basing this on…?

Baptism is a redemptive Sacrament, necessary for redemption and entry to eternal life according to what the Lord said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3).

Except that this verse has nothing to do with water baptism.

but if the new-born is sick and his parents are afraid the baby will die, they must request the priest to baptize and anoint the baby with the Myron, even if the child is one day old, and under any circumstance (as the priest may not be fasting or unable to baptize him by immersion); the baptism must be carried out quickly, so that the child does not die without Baptism and is deprived from entry or sight of the Kingdom, according to the words of our beloved Savior (John 3).

First of all, Jesus didn’t say any such thing in John 3, nor anyplace else.

Second, tell me what sins a one day old infant can commit.

 

[mercygate]

This is the second time you’ve told the lie that I’m making the argument that “households” excludes children.

Are you really that afraid of being honest?

Ah. Sorry we misunderstood.

Then you DO concur that the word “household” includes children/infants. Thus, when Scripture uses the world “household” in saying that when a whole household was baptized, the children/infants would have been baptized also.

Since Scripture does not say, “the whole household except the infants and children” you interpret “household” as MEANING “the whole household except the infants and chldren” and your warrant for doing so is YOUR personal reading of the text apart from the practice of the apostolic and sub-apostolic Church.

I take it, then, that the actual practice of the apostolic and sub-apostolic Church is, by your reckoning, at best, irrelevant but more likely represents the early apostasy of the Church. Would that be a correct summary of your positiion?

 

[brosam]

Ah. Sorry we misunderstood.

Then you DO concur that the word “household” includes children/infants. Thus, when Scripture uses the world “household” in saying that when a whole household was baptized, the children/infants would have been baptized also.

Same answer I gave the first fifteen times.

Since Scripture does not say, “the whole household except the infants and children” you interpret “household” as MEANING “the whole household except the infants and chldren” and your warrant for doing so is YOUR personal reading of the text apart from the practice of the apostolic and sub-apostolic Church.

And where does scripture say that every house must include infants?

I take it, then, that the actual practice of the apostolic and sub-apostolic Church is, by your reckoning, at best, irrelevant but more likely represents the early apostasy of the Church. Would that be a correct summary of your positiion?

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s apostasy, but the Biblical model is always believers’ baptism by immersion.

 

[jstew]

I have been following your discussion for a while now and thought I might add a thought. CHrist did correct the Apostles when they did not want the children coming to HIm… did He not??? I am sure that these children were not of the age of reason. We baptize our children to bring them in to the family of God and wash away the original impurities of the fall of Man. After baptism, what happens if you fall into sin again??? You cannot be rebabptized… that is why Christ instilled the sacrament of reconciliation. We recieve God’s graces and forgiveness by coming to Him again. He knew we would fall repeatedly in life and so He gave us the wonderful gift of COnfession. THis is a sacrament that is also written about in eraly CHurch writings.

GOd Bless and I will continue to watch this debate unfold!!

JS

 

[jstew]

Also, I think if God did not want us Baptizing infants he would have specifically told us NOT to… he is pretty clear on things not to do most of the time!!!


JS

 

[mercygate]

And where does scripture say that every house must include infants?

Must? The word “household” included infants. A particular household may or may not have had infants in it – although with extended families living together, the probability is WAAAYYYY on the side of infants being in virtually EVERY household.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s apostasy, but the Biblical model is always believers’ baptism by immersion.

This is the crux of the matter. You view “the Book” as a stand-alone proposition, separate from its authors, separate from the Church that canonized it, separate from the PRACTICE of that Church through history.

What is puzzling is that many believers, who share the SAME stand-alone view of the Bible ACCEPT infant baptism.

Ah. Now you’re back on topic: Immersion.

When you say “immersion” what do you mean. The word can be interpreted in two primary ways: full submersion and entering the water, where the person doing the baptising pours the water over the person.

Did you know that Catholics understand immersion to be the optimum form of baptism? We ALLOW pouring (not sprinkling, not a rose dipped in the font) for the sake of necessity, since the intent of baptism trumps the technique. The necessary element of the Sacrament is water, and the necessary form is the Trinitarian formula.

 

[brosam]

I have been following your discussion for a while now and thought I might add a thought. CHrist did correct the Apostles when they did not want the children coming to HIm… did He not???

He did. However, that passage has not one thing to do with baptism.

This is a sacrament that is also written about in eraly CHurch writings.

But not in the Bible.

 

[brosam]

Also, I think if God did not want us Baptizing infants he would have specifically told us NOT to… he is pretty clear on things not to do most of the time!!!


JS

The Bible does say that Baptism is for those who’ve repented and put their faith in Christ’s atonement on the cross. How many infants do you know who’ve done that?

 

[jstew]

He did. However, that passage has not one thing to do with baptism.

But not in the Bible.

True but there are other things not in the Bible that all CHristian faiths believe. Christ did not leave the BIble as the soel authority over CHristianity. The BIble never claims this anywhere. It does state that the Church is the Billwark and Pillar of truth.
You should read the book “Where we Got the BIble” I cannot remember the author, even though someelse on the website does BUt he studied where the Bible came form and this led to his conversion from protestantism to the Catholic CHurch.
It really helps you see why Scripture and Tradition has to go together!!

Peace

JS

 

[brosam]

Must? The word “household” included infants.

No it doesn’t. Household means “household”. There’s nothing at all in the etymology of the word to suggest that it requires infants.

A particular household may or may not have had infants in it – although with extended families living together, the probability is WAAAYYYY on the side of infants being in virtually EVERY household.

And therein lies the difference: The Christian bases doctrine on what the Bible says. You’re basing doctrine on what you assume the Bible “really means” between the lines.

This is the crux of the matter. You view “the Book” as a stand-alone proposition, separate from its authors, separate from the Church that canonized it, separate from the PRACTICE of that Church through history.

I do? Gee, thanks for that little bit of Roman Catholic taqiyaa.

What is puzzling is that many believers, who share the SAME stand-alone view of the Bible ACCEPT infant baptism.

That’s true. However, do we base doctrine on what other people believe or what the Bible says?

When you say “immersion” what do you mean.

I mean “to immerse”.

Did you know that Catholics understand immersion to be the optimum form of baptism?

When was the last time you baptised an infant by immersion?

 

[brosam]

True but there are other things not in the Bible that all CHristian faiths believe. Christ did not leave the BIble as the soel authority over CHristianity.

You’re right. However, He did give it as the final authority.