Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

  • Thread starter Thread starter stewstew03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rinnie said:
I think you need to read the paper again, Or you were given a false paper. The funeral is part of the Catholic Mass where prayers are said for the person who died and the prayers are to help the person if they were to go to purgatory to lesson their time.
Click to expand...
I should have been more specific. Also, I should have waited to respond until I could get something more specific in front of me. The thing that caught my attention was the commendation of the dead person, when the coffin is sprinkled with holy water and incensed. The bulletin included a note (which the priest also talked about briefly) indicating that such commendation is symbolic and is not purported to have any effect on a dead person’s soul. But it’s done anyway, and nobody was trying to ask why even bother doing that, mere symbol, is it really worth anything, woo woo woo.
 
jrtrent said:
It seems you hold symbolism in lower regard than others do.
Click to expand...
I think this is just common sense.

Symbolism is good. But reality is better.

For example, my father was a doctor. I could take a stethoscope and say, “This symbolizes my dad.” When I see the stethoscope, I remember with great fondness my father.

However, I would much prefer the reality of having him present with me.
 
ltwin said:
It isn’t re-baptizing if you think the other “baptisms” were invalid. It would be like the Catholic Church saying non-Trinitiarian “baptism” is not baptism at all. Are Catholic’s “re-baptizing” or are they just deciding that a “baptism” never occurred at all?
Click to expand...
A Non-Trinitarian baptism is not a valid baptism.

The Baptismal formula was instituted by Christ Himself!

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

If anyone disagrees, let him take it to the Lord…
 
stewstew03 said:
What I’m looking for is the scripture that supports what you wrote earlier. Namely, that Christ commanded this sacrament because baptism is a symbol that: (1) publicly identifies us as Christians, (2) gives us an opportunity to renew our commitment to Christ, etc., and (3) if we get baptized others might see it and also want to get baptized.

:bible1:
Click to expand...
Me, too!
 
stewstew03 said:
Must be baptized the way Jesus demonstrated?
Click to expand...
I’ve always found this to be a peculiar declaration, “We baptize the way Jesus was baptized”. And by this they mean, of course, immersion.

But actually, the way "Jesus was baptized’ was in the River Jordan, by his cousin, when he was in his thirties, after probably taking off his leather sandals and tunic.

Why do churches not mandate all of the above, in order to baptize the way “Jesus was baptized”? I think it would be interesting to make it a valid baptism only if your older cousin (whose diet consists of locusts and honey) came to church to baptize you.

It appears that folks take one arbitrary factor–baptism by immersion–and ignore the rest and still claim to be baptized the way “Jesus was baptized.”
 
Monergistic said:
I should have been more specific. Also, I should have waited to respond until I could get something more specific in front of me. The thing that caught my attention was the commendation of the dead person, when the coffin is sprinkled with holy water and incensed. The bulletin included a note (which the priest also talked about briefly) indicating that such commendation is symbolic and is not purported to have any effect on a dead person’s soul. But it’s done anyway, and nobody was trying to ask why even bother doing that, mere symbol, is it really worth anything, woo woo woo.
Click to expand...
Is “baptism” something that equates to a note in the church bulletin? I thought it was a command from Christ.
 
stewstew03 said:
So - in your opinion, is baptism a command from Jesus?
Click to expand...
So- do you equate my opinion with something that carries authoritative weight? I don’t mind at all if you want to say something to me, so please go right ahead.
 
rinnie said:
From what I am told only if the person is dying and cannot get to the Church anotherwards extreme measures. And it does not have to be an infant.

So to a degree, what the poster said is true, any baptised adult can baptise another. But again according to the teaching of the Church only in extreme situations.
Click to expand...
But, in an extreme situation, any person can baptize another, even an atheist.

The person baptizing does not need to believe and does not need to be a baptized adult.

They only need to use the Trinitarian formula and water and say "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

If that they follow that and mean to do it in the way it is meant, then it is all good.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
A Non-Trinitarian baptism is not a valid baptism.

The Baptismal formula was instituted by Christ Himself!

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

If anyone disagrees, let him take it to the Lord…
Click to expand...
I’m not disagreeing with the baptismal formula. However, I’m pointing out to the OP that Baptists and others who “re-baptize” adults who had infant baptism and what not do not see it as “re-baptizing” since to them infant baptism is not valid.
 
stewstew03 said:
Is “baptism” something that equates to a note in the church bulletin? I thought it was a command from Christ.
Click to expand...
The point is that the argument “symbols are useless so why even do it if you think its a symbol?” is a stupid argument, since even Catholics engage in symbolic behavior.
 
ltwin said:
I’m not disagreeing with the baptismal formula. However, I’m pointing out to the OP that Baptists and others who “re-baptize” adults who had infant baptism and what not do not see it as “re-baptizing” since to them infant baptism is not valid.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
I don’t know why, but this thread saddens me…

IMHO , we shouldn’t make light or question the authenticity of anyone’s baptism done in good faith and making a declaration of their belief in one God, Christ as our savior, the Holy Spirit and solidarity of the Trinity. In regards to this thread, we all share the belief in Christ as our savior and the Trinity. Why belittle one another’s practices? How are as we as Catholics to evangelize and bring others to what we know and love if we go about it in a manner that is placing the other party automatically on the defensive???

Frankly, I don’t understand or believe in the need or reason for multiple baptisms if the original is done in accordance with the Trinity and the proper heart. Also, I understand the Catholic Church accepts these baptisms as proper and valid when one converts to Catholicism.

They are not merely symbolic and worthless and to say so is insulting as well as hurtful to many good Christians and most likely to God…

Also, the statements regarding prayers and incense for those passed away is equally misunderstood and many Catholics as well as non Catholics have read and understand why this is done and is important for those who have passed away… Why make folly of this?

I understand this is not the evangelization forum, but we are always representing our Lord and beliefs no matter where we are or post and should be bringing others closer to him.

I also understand I will receive much flack for these statements as I have in the past and will refrain from posting further in order to not receive multiple negative emails and posts regarding my lack of being a proper Catholic… It was over a year before I posted on Catholic Answers again after the nasty comments I received the last time. Please, understand my opinions and thoughts are not meant to insult others of any religion and do not reflect a lack of my genuine love of the Church. However, my first love is God.

God Bless~
 
Bix said:
I don’t know why, but this thread saddens me…
Click to expand...
I think you know why, and you stated it very well. Your reminder of our need to engage in more civil discourse has made the thread a little brighter. Thanks.
 
PRmerger said:
I’ve always found this to be a peculiar declaration, “We baptize the way Jesus was baptized”. And by this they mean, of course, immersion.

But actually, the way "Jesus was baptized’ was in the River Jordan, by his cousin, when he was in his thirties, after probably taking off his leather sandals and tunic.

Why do churches not mandate all of the above, in order to baptize the way “Jesus was baptized”? I think it would be interesting to make it a valid baptism only if your older cousin (whose diet consists of locusts and honey) came to church to baptize you.

It appears that folks take one arbitrary factor–baptism by immersion–and ignore the rest and still claim to be baptized the way “Jesus was baptized.”
Click to expand...
👍
 
As an Anglican I recognize the validity of an infant’s baptism. I do not understand why some evangelicals insist on rebaptizing someone.
 
cajunhillbilly said:
As an Anglican I recognize the validity of an infant’s baptism. I do not understand why some evangelicals insist on rebaptizing someone.
Click to expand...
Yeah that :confused: me as well. If a Protestant converts to Catholicism, we accept their baptism if it was in the correct forumla (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). I was baptized in the Baptist faith and when I converted there was no need for another one.
 
ltwin said:
The point is that the argument “symbols are useless so why even do it if you think its a symbol?” is a stupid argument, since even Catholics engage in symbolic behavior.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you’ve presented an accurate distillation of the OP’s argument.

Rather, I think, stew’s argument can be condensed to: if baptism is symbolic, why all the criteria?

Why only by immersion? Why do baptism-is-symbolic-only believers start their own churches because they disagree so vehemently on one particular aspect of this symbolic-only practice?

If it is symbolic-only, then why name your congregation after it? That would be like, borrowing from the analogy of the SBC apologist website, my stating, not that I am married, but that I am a Ringer. I have a wedding ring that symbolizes my marriage and I want to name my relationship with my husband, not as marriage, but as a Ringer. If the important part is the marriage, and not the ring, why identify oneself by the ring?

Why?
 
cajunhillbilly said:
As an Anglican I recognize the validity of an infant’s baptism. I do not understand why some evangelicals insist on rebaptizing someone.
Click to expand...
It is not hard to understand, because they believe that the believer had to make the decision to be baptized. By immersion it is not a secret, as all have the possibility see you as if you fell in a river. It is like saying I don’t understand why I should face Mecca to pray or not eat a cow
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top