Baptists vs. Catholicism

[BRB]

I hate to tell you this but you can only get baptised one time. A 2nd or multiple baptism is a sacrilege.

Really … a sacrilege ??

Doesn’t the priest at Easter walk about sprinkling baptismal waters on the faithful ?

& what about the Church’s history of baptisms done for the dead ?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Really … a sacrilege ??

Doesn’t the priest at Easter walk about sprinkling baptismal waters on the faithful ?

& what about the Church’s history of baptisms done for the dead ?

What in the WORLD are you talking about? You have some very strange preconceptions about the Catholic Faith. Wasn’t it you who left the Catholic Church? If so I can see why - you don’t understand it.

At Easter the priest blesses each person in the assembly by sprinkling those in attendance with holy water. Holy water blessings are a means by which venial sins are forgiven and a means by which we petition God to grant us his divine blessings in our lives in a special and personal way. The Easter blessings are more symbolically significant since they are in the ecclesial calendar where the Church is celebrating new birth from the implications of the resurrection after a period of suffering (Holy Week when Christ we tried and executed) and after the period of suffrage during Lent (40 days where Catholics practice self denial, alms giving, repentance and preparation for Easter renewal). It is a also a memorial of our personal baptism. It is a real blessing with a highly significant memorial aspect that is integrative with the holy season. IT IS NOT A RE- BAPTISM! We just use the religious season of “rebirth” (Easter) as an opportunity to recollect and reafirm our baptismal vows and public renounce Satan and all his empty promises and acknowledge that we follow Christ and His promises in a public profession of faith. Again - this is NOT a sacramental baptism but a public reaffirmation of our faith.

As for baptisms for the dead - what are you talking about? I do not know of any baptism for the dead. We have a last rites but this is conveyed before death. We also pray for the dead because we know that God is omniscient and timeless and can hear our prayers today as if spoken before that person died and we know that after death a soul in purgatory can also benefit from those prayers as God elects.

James

 

[BRB]

It is a also a memorial of our personal baptism. an opportunity to recollect and reafirm our baptismal vows

I do not know of any baptism for the dead.

A memorial, a personal reafirmation of those vows of parents/godparents … in certain cases

Re: baptism for the dead … Consult your NT, 1st. Cor. 15:29 where Paul discusses

 

[CentralFLJames]

A memorial, a personal reafirmation of those vows of parents/godparents … in certain cases

Re: baptism for the dead … Consult your NT, 1st. Cor. 15:29 where Paul discusses

OK, glad I cleared that misconception up. Easter holy water sprinkling is NOT sacramental baptism - EVER. However, if somone who was not Catholic and was in attendance at an Easter mass and had a profound awakening and had recited those baptismal vows and DESIRED to be baptised into Christ’s Church and who later was killed in an accident or died etc. then it is highly probable that God would supernaturally extend to them a baptism of desire (just as He did with the good thief) and confer all the benefits to that individual (remission of original sin and all personal sins and temporal debts and an immediate indwelling of the Holy Spirit). Baptism is a profound sacrament.
**
The bit about baptism for the dead though is still “way out there” and NOT a thing Catholics practise.** 1st. Cor. 15:29 does not teach this either.

The Mormons have some utterly bizarre practise based on this wrong interpretation of this verse. They, Mormon’s (NOT CATHOLICS) claim that this verse supports their view of baptism for the dead. In Mormon practice (another new innovation of man), individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person. This way, the dead person has fulfilled the requirements of salvation in the afterworld and can enjoy further spiritual benefits in the spiritual realm. It sounds like some sort of strange baptism by proxy or underworld voodoo to me. The Catholic Church utterly rejects Mormon practise and has publicly warned them how gravely wrong it is. More here: ewtn.com/library/answers/camorm2.htm

So no, in the 1 Cor 15:29 verse Paul was criticising pagan practices that some of the Corinthians were using and was trying to convert them from paganism to the Catholic Faith. In 1 Cor. 15:29, Paul said, “…if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?” Note that Paul did not say “we” - as in The Church.

I hope you now will no longer believe that the Catholic Church baptises dead people and spread that falsehood.

James

 

[BRB]

So no, in the 1 Cor 15:29 verse Paul was criticising pagan practices that some of the Corinthians were using and was trying to convert them from paganism to the Catholic Faith. In 1 Cor. 15:29, Paul said, “…if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?” Note that Paul did not say “we” - as in The Church.

I hope you now will no longer believe that the Catholic Church baptises dead people and spread that falsehood.

James

Not sure what edition you are using …

Lets look @ RSV text on topic. The context is Paul discussing the assurance and logic of the resurrection.

"Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead ? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf ?

Would seem the early Catholic Church had ‘baptism for the dead’. Wonder what the ECF’s said on this early Tradition and what RCC now explains with regards to the practice & its longevity ?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Not sure what edition you are using …

Lets look @ RSV text on topic. The context is Paul discussing the assurance and logic of the resurrection.

"Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead ? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf ?

Would seem the early Catholic Church had ‘baptism for the dead’. Wonder what the ECF’s said on this early Tradition and what RCC now explains with regards to the practice & its longevity ?

BRB, don’t be absurd please. Paul is Catholic and is talking to the Corinthians who are living among pagans and telling them to not follow their practices. The Catholic Church HAS NEVER practiced baptism of the dead. If you want to try and slander Catholics as pagans that is utterly disingenuous and you know it. Show a single Catholic Bishop or clergy who has ever practised baptism of the dead or please kindly quit spouting utter anti-Catholic lies. Show a single Catholic ECF, recognized saint or clergy who has every taught or practised this.

James

 

[BRB]

don’t be absurd please. Paul is Catholic and is talking to the Corinthians who are living among pagans and telling them to not follow their practices. The Catholic Church HAS NEVER practiced baptism of the dead. If you want to try and slander Catholics as pagans that is utterly disingenuous and you know it. Show a single Catholic Bishop or clergy who has ever practised baptism of the dead or please kindly quit spouting utter anti-Catholic lies.
James

Did I touch a nerve ! Calm down, no need to take up arms against the heretics. You should know that Baptists have raised this question with regards to the early church’s beliefs/traditions.
Surely Catholics have also looked at these verses and wondered what Paul saying here. We know that the practice was not much talked about in history texts … so it probably wasn’t common and didn’t last for very long.

I don’t see your explanation of these scripture as valid. Where did you get your info from ?

 

[ellammcg]

Baptism of Dead:

Concerning baptism for the dead, a curious and difficult passage in St. Paul’s Epistle has given rise to some controversy. The Apostle says: “Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?” (1 Corinthians 15:29). There seems to be no question here of any such absurd custom as conferring baptism on corpses, as was practiced later by some heretical sects. It has been conjectured that this otherwise unknown usage of the Corinthians consisted in some living person receiving a symbolic baptism as representing another who had died with the desire of becoming a Christian, but had been prevented from realizing his wish for baptism by an unforeseen death. Those who give this explanation say that St. Paul merely refers to this custom of the Corinthians as an argumentum ad hominem, when discussing the resurrection of the dead, without approving the usage mentioned.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Though Paul did not endorse baptism for the dead, he pointed out that the practice (evidently existent in Corinth) is meaningless if there is no resurrection (1 Cor 15:29). There is no biblical support for baptism for the dead. To die lost is to remain forever lost. Willmington’s Bible Handbook. 1997, S. 686

Only LDS practice this today, it has never been an accepted Christian practice.

LDS practice of vicarious baptism for the dead is NOT the Bible, but modern revelation, which is the rock upon which the Church was founded

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BaptDead.shtml

I have never heard anyone (before now) accuse Catholics of supporting such a thing.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

It was your verse. Abraham being saved by his faith. James says he was justified by his works. The Catholic Church can show why this is not a contradiction.

First of all, James didn’t say he was justified by his works. To the contrary, James said that Abraham had faith and, because of his faith, God accounted him righteous.

When you talked about it “just” being a parable.

Pointing out that a parable is a parable is not “disdaining” it. It’s just pointing out that it is a parable. Even the Gospel authors point out that they’re parables.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Pointing out that a parable is a parable is not “disdaining” it. It’s just pointing out that it is a parable. Even the Gospel authors point out that they’re parables.

You said “just” a parable. Is a parable any less of a part of scripture. Is it’s meaning any less that that of the rest of scripture. Doesn’t it’s teaching still ring true?

Are you on the baptist side or the Catholic side. In one post, you claim to be a bible-believing christian. That leads me to believe that you are Catholic or orthodox. Is that true?

 

[peary]

Really … a sacrilege ??

I don’t think it’s a sacrilege moreso than it is just irrelevant. Once you are sacramentally baptized, you begin your journey of salvation

Doesn’t the priest at Easter walk about sprinkling baptismal waters on the faithful ?

That is a special blessing bestowed on us to remember our initial sacramental Baptism.

& what about the Church’s history of baptisms done for the dead ?

**The Catholic Church does not baptize the dead. You must be confusing that with the Mormons. That is an integral part of *their ***belief system, not the Catholic Church.

 

[pnewton]

First of all, James didn’t say he was justified by his works. To the contrary, James said that Abraham had faith and, because of his faith, God accounted him righteous.

He was justified by both, if one take the plain meaning of James:

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” 24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I don’t think it’s a sacrilege moreso than it is just irrelevant. Once you are sacramentally baptized, you begin your journey of salvation

Actually, participating in any sacrament that can only be administered licitly and validly one time is a sacrilege. Examples of these kinds of sacraments include: Baptism, Holy Orders (and Marriage if not widowed or anulled).
Real Sacrilege (From Catholic Encyclopedia):

Ref: Real sacrilege
Real sacrilege is the irreverent treatment of sacred things as distinguished from places and persons. This can happen first of all by the administration or reception of the sacraments (or in the case of the Holy Eucharist by celebration) in the state of mortal sin, as also by advertently doing any of those things invalidly. Indeed deliberate and notable irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist is reputed the worst of all sacrileges. Likewise conscious maltreatment of sacred pictures or relics or perversion of Holy Scripture or sacred vessels to unhallowed uses, and finally, the usurpation or diverting of property (whether movable or immovable) intended for the maintenance of the clergy or serving for the ornamentation of the church to other uses, constitute real sacrileges. Sometimes the guilt of sacrilege may be incurred by omitting what is required for the proper administration of the sacraments or celebration of the sacrifice, as for example, if one were to say Mass without the sacred vestments.

Catholic Catechism 2120
Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.

So, if one is not a consecrated and properly ordained Catholic or Orthodox priest in good standing and tries to effect the consecration of the Eucharist or attempts to sacramentally forgive sins or who consciously tries to re-ordain or re-baptise somone already ordained or baptised etc. this is a sacrilege. If somone knows they are baptised they SHOULD NOT ask to be rebaptised. If in doubt if one was baptised as a child in a non-Catholic church (i.e. no records attesting) the priest should be informed of this fact so he can perform a conditional baptism.

James

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by peary
I don’t think it’s a sacrilege moreso than it is just irrelevant. Once you are sacramentally baptized, you begin your journey of salvation
Originally Posted by centralFLJamesActually, participating in any sacrament that can only be administered licitly and validly one time is a sacrilege. Examples of these kinds of sacraments include: Baptism, Holy Orders (and Marriage if not widowed or anulled).

I do not understand your answer to me. Please clarify.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Originally Posted by peary
I don’t think it’s a sacrilege moreso than it is just irrelevant. Once you are sacramentally baptized, you begin your journey of salvation
Originally Posted by centralFLJamesActually, participating in any sacrament that can only be administered licitly and validly one time is a sacrilege. Examples of these kinds of sacraments include: Baptism, Holy Orders (and Marriage if not widowed or anulled).

I do not understand your answer to me. Please clarify.

Here is an example:
If somone was previously already baptised outside the Catholic Church and the person who baptised them was not a priest but they used the proper form and trinitarian formula that person is in deed really baptised into Jesus’ death, passion and glory - forever. That can never change.

But If this same person later became Catholic and wanted a new baptism from a genuinely ordained priest, the priest could not re-baptise this person if he knows that without committing a sacrilege. Such a person could ask for a conditional baptism if they were unsure if they were baptised though. In other words, the sacreledge is really only held grave and bound if it was done with full consent.

That help?

James

 

[WynCatholic]

{I deleted some}

(11) the three original doctrinal variations are

(a) “Free and General Baptists” e.g.
----American Baptist Association
----Free Will Baptist Church
----General Association of General Baptists
----General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
----General Six-Principle Baptists
----National Association of Free Will Baptists

(b) “Strict and Particular Baptists” e.g.
----American Baptist Churches
----Association of Grace Baptist Churches
----Association of Regular Baptist Churches
----Baptist Bible Fellowship International
----Baptist General Conference
----Continental Baptist Churches
----Grace Baptist Assembly
----National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
----North American Baptist Conference
----Southern Baptist Convention

(c) “Seventh-day Baptists”

For the most part, all of these would accept the Apostles or Nicene Creed, so we have the same God (Trinity, one God in Three Divine Persons) and Jesus Christ (God and man in one Divine Person), with his atonement and death, bodily resurrection, and ascension into heaven.

Phil P

You may wish to add an imroved version of this: {typed by moi just now)
12. In recent times a new subset of Baptist have developed: The Dispensationalist Baptist. I 'll let you explain 1830 Darby, the schofield reference Bible, the KJV version only, Textus Receptus, separation etc}
You may well find some dispensationalists with a larger Baptist denomination, and you will often find some of their teaching inconsistently incorporated into the teaching of the middle of the road baptist church. Thomas Road Baptist {liberty Baptist} is the the type of ‘mothership’ of this type of Baptist.
the Independent Fundamental Baptist separated out of this ‘tradition’ They are more extreme in their separation. the statements of faith for these groups restrict fellowship to those that are also KJV only, Pretribulation Rapture, and Bible onlly. Their anti-Catholicism is palpable.
I could do some more research if you wish., but this subset rest so much upon the ego and skills of the pastor and a core group, that these churches split, move, and merge frequently. 5-30 families would be the average size.

 

[peary]

Here is an example:
If somone was previously already baptised outside the Catholic Church and the person who baptised them was not a priest but they used the proper form and trinitarian formula that person is in deed really baptised into Jesus’ death, passion and glory - forever. That can never change.

But If this same person later became Catholic and wanted a new baptism from a genuinely ordained priest, the priest could not re-baptise this person if he knows that without committing a sacrilege. Such a person could ask for a conditional baptism if they were unsure if they were baptised though. In other words, the sacreledge is really only held grave and bound if it was done with full consent.

That help?

James

**I know all that. Say a nonCatholic goes from denomination to denomination and gets baptized in each one. Having never understood what baptism is in the first place, is he or she committing sacrilege or is it invincible ignorance, because there are cases like that.

 

[Josh316]

No it’s not. That’s exactly why they split.

I disagree. Not only does history tell us that the church became corrupt, there are many incidents in scripture where the church is rebuked for its corruption, both doctrinal and political.

I agree. And the Reformation was a large part of God’s plan to protect the integrity of the church.

“Legitimate wrongs and practices”? I thought you just said that the church cannot do this. Which is it?

First of all, Luther may have had pride, but I don’t believe that he ever demanded that people kiss his ring or defer to him as God’s representative on Earth.

Second, Lutheranism was not called Lutheranism by Luther.

I disagree. A February 16, 2006 article in Christianity Today noted that, while the number of Lutherans in North America has fallen slightly, it has risen sharply worldwide.

I disagree. Having actually taken the time to study it, I believe it is very much Biblically based.

Again, I disagree. Anglicanism is not dying. There is a rift between two factions of Anglicanism: one following Biblical teaching, one following doctrinal and social liberalism incompatible with Biblical teaching.

I’m following this story pretty closely and while the numbers of that remnant may be small, they are very strong and I believe that their allegience to the Gospel and to sound doctrine will bear a lot of fruit.

It’s not malarkey at all. There is a man in that little booth to whom you must confess.

And that’s simply not true. If it were, then we would not have creeds and confessions, we would not have doctrinal standards, and we would not have discipline for those who violate those doctrinal standards.

Such a person would surely be pointed out as being a “LOne Ranger Christian”, a practice which is very much condemned in Protestant and Baptist sects.

Protestantism revolves around the church. If you’re not aware of this, then you really need to go back and study the Reformation before you criticize others.

My home is in Christ, not in any religious organization. While Christ gave the church to be a teacher (although I do not believe it is your church), He also gave the church His word to guide it in all matters doctrinal and practical.

Yes, I do know that the Catholic church played a large role in Western Civilization. I also know that the Reformation and the Reformers played an equally large role.

Here you go:

yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm

Protestant.

Really? Then how do you explain:

“ And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” – Romans 4:22-25

“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”- James 2:23

“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:” – Romans 4:11

I disagree. The Bible is clear that the scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Which part of this passage do you believe says that we can lose our salvation?

Yes, I have heard of people who have left the Catholic church because of the rampant preist sex abuse and because of that institution’s unwillingness to do anything about it.

What scandals are there in our church?

Because it’s foolish to tell somebody that they’re wrong when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I agree, but we’re not talking about Christianity in general, we’re talking about one organization within Christianity.

Simply put, infused righteousness means that God gives you a measure of righteousness that you either keep or lose, depending on your actions.

Imputed righteousness means that God knows that we are not righteous and considers us righteous, not because of our own works, but because of our standing in Christ.

Imputed righteousness is taught in the Bible in, among other places:

“ And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” – Romans 4:22-25

“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”- James 2:23

“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:” – Romans 4:11

I don’t know what version of the “bible” your reading (probably one of the 8 or is it 9 now? kjv’s) but The Holy bible I’m reading says “credited” not" imputed"

 

[Josh316]

And, of course, this would be a lie, as I have already posted numerous verses of scripture to support the Biblical teaching of imputed righteousness.

No, of course this would be the truth as the bible versus you quote are not only misinterpreted but also king james.

 

[Josh316]

I don’t think that there is anyone arguing against us anymore.

The visiting team packed up and went home.

They can always join the home team for the next game.

How can you argue with the truths of Jesus Christ?