Do Baptists have Sacraments?

[Jesus_123]

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
The Catechism of the Catholic Church

[FIRST EDITION]
The **Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC) **is the official text of the teachings of the Catholic Church. The new Catechism was first published[3] in 1994 — in French — and was then translated into many other languages.[4]

[EDITED AND CHANGED SECOND EDITION]
On August 15, 1997 — the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary — Pope John Paul II promulgated the Latin typical edition, with his apostolic letter, Laetamur Magnopere.[5] The Latin text, which became the official text of reference (editio typica),[6] amended the contents of the provisional French text at a few points.[7] As a result, the original translations into other languages (from the French) had to be amended and re-published as “second editions” (including English).[8]

- Wickipedia​

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
The Catechism of the Catholic Church

[FIRST EDITION]
The **Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC) **is the official text of the teachings of the Catholic Church. The new Catechism was first published[3] in 1994 — in French — and was then translated into many other languages.[4]

[EDITED AND CHANGED SECOND EDITION]
On August 15, 1997 — the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary — Pope John Paul II promulgated the Latin typical edition, with his apostolic letter, Laetamur Magnopere.[5] The Latin text, which became the official text of reference (editio typica),[6] amended the contents of the provisional French text at a few points.[7] As a result, the original translations into other languages (from the French) had to be amended and re-published as “second editions” (including English).[8]

- Wickipedia​

I’m a little confused about your posts. What point are you trying to make?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .No, I have talked to my Baptist pastor for quite a while, also about the Sacraments and he said that Baptism is not a Sacrament and not needed for salvation, but only an outward sign that you have enthrusted your life Jesus and are willing to walk with Him… . . .

And infant-baptism is only a blessing and **credo **(=believing) **baptism **is an official sign that you have enthrusted your life Jesus and are willing to go with Him. This also means i.e. that Baptism is not needed for salvation. . . .

Esdra,

As I said before, you are confusing Baptism with the Protestant practice of Infant Dedication. It is only through Baptism that the infant is forgiven of sins and brought into Covenant with God-into the Body of Christ-into the Kingdom of God.

I’m still hoping for your comments about Scripture and Baptism. Holy Scripture clearly connects the forgiveness of sins and even the gift of the Holy Spirit with Baptism. So, how can Baptism be a purely symbolic act?

Acts 2:38 (English Standard Version):
38And Peter said to them, "Repent and **be baptized **every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Colossians Chapter 2 speaks of being buried with Christ in Baptism, and raised with Him through faith and are connected with the powerful working of God. Baptism is called the “circumcision made without hands.” Israel’s infants were circumcised which brought them into Covenant with God. They didn’t wait until their children reached an age of understanding to bring them into this Holy Covenant.

Colossians 2: 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Also, Baptism, the circumcision made without hands, is more inclusive than Circumcision under the Old Covenant, not less inclusive. Why would the New Covenant exclude infants, when the Old Covenant included them?

Galatians 3:
27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Remember God’s Covenant with Abraham, which involved circumcision of male infants when they were eight days old-the everlasting Covenant?

Genesis 17: 10This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Would you provide sources from Scripture to support your belief that Baptism is purely symbolic; one must wait until an age of understanding before they can be Baptized---- and what is that age? Also, how do you know that Baptism is not a necessary part of salvation? IOW, please provide support for the belief that Baptism is not a Sacrament.

. . . . .However, our past does not characterize the present or the future of the SBC. . . .

GeorgeTheWild,
I would really like your comments on Baptism as well.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

You’re. . .

. . . .This also means i.e. that Baptism is not needed for salvation.

Esdra & GeorgeTheWild,

The SBC describes The Lord’s Supper as a symbolic act of obedience, memorializing the death of the Redeemer and anticipating His second coming. If you look at the SBC Scripture references for this belief, you will find that John Chapter 6 is omitted. See The Baptist Faith and Message, VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, Link: sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#i.

Yet, some critical things are revealed to us in John Chapter 6, including the revelation that the flesh of Christ is true food, and His blood is true drink; those who feed on His flesh and drink His blood, abides in Him, and Christ in them; the necessity to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, in order to have life in us–in order to have eternal life and be raised on the last day.

**John Chapter 6:

35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.**

Matthew, Mark, and 1 Corinthians also point to the bread and wine being the body and Blood of Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:18 even says, "Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?"

Matthew 26: 26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14: 22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

1 Corinthians 10: 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?"

SBC beliefs, that The Lord’s Supper is merely a symbolic act of obedience; and Baptism is merely a church ordinance, seem to directly contradict Scripture.

**If, you celebrate the Lord’s supper as a purely symbolic remembrance of Christ; how do you fulfill the requirement to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, in order to have life in you–in order to have eternal life and be raised on the last day? **

Esdra & GeorgeTheWild, I’m really hoping that you will both find time to return to this thread and offer your comments regarding the Lord’s Supper and Baptism.

Esdra, you started this thread about whether or not Baptists have Sacraments. So I don’t understand why you would leave responses to your thread unanswered. I do realize that it is certainly your right, and GeorgeTheWild’s right, not to answer my questions.

I started a thread in January 2010 entitled, Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord’s Supper/Eucharist? At that time, I was really studying the issue of the Lord’s Supper. Only one Baptist posted on the thread, and he did not answer the questions of the thread. I participated on another thread about Baptism. There were participants on that thread that just dropped out of the discussion rather than answer questions.

Esdra & GeorgeTheWild, maybe you have both just been busy or missed my last post.

Whatever the reason, I would really like to hear your comments on The Lord’s Supper, and Baptism–when you get a chance (see Post #23 for questions re Baptism). No rush. Enjoy this Holiday.

The Lord’s Supper and Baptism are such important issues.

Peace to all,
Anna

 

[Esdra]

Hi Anna Scott

thank you for your many and detailled responses!

I’ve read them but didn’t find time to answer them. sorry

Well, I think, like in many theological points, Baptism is a matter of interpretation of the Holy Bible…

There are Verses that clearly speak of giving ones life to Jesus, meaning believing in Him, without an explicit reference that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Like John 1:12, John 3:3-6 - also Matthew 3:11 is good or Luke 3:7.

Actually, Richard Kastner, although being a SDA, has answered questions concerning baptism quite often here very detailled and good IMO.

in Christ,
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Peace to all,
Anna

Well, and the thing with the Lord’s Supper and the Real Presence is also a story for its own.
Calvin and Zwingli started with that idea. They started emphasising Jesus words “Do this in **remembrence **of me.” (Luke 22:19) Furhtermore, they often use 1 Corinthians 11:23-32
So, if Presbyterians or Reformed Evangelicals would like to help me here?

in Christ,

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well, and the thing with the Lord’s Supper and the Real Presence is also a story for its own.
Calvin and Zwingli started with that idea. They started emphasising Jesus words “Do this in **remembrence **of me.” (Luke 22:19) Furhtermore, they often use 1 Corinthians 11:23-32
So, if Presbyterians or Reformed Evangelicals would like to help me here?

in Christ,

Esdra,

I really appreciate your return to the thread. I know we just had a Holiday weekend.

I’m aware of those Scriptures, but we must consider the Bible as a whole. Remembrance is only one part of what the Scriptures tell us about the Lord’s Supper.

John Chapter 6 tells us the Lord’s Supper is much more than simply remembrance; and connects it with being raised on the last day, eternal life, and abiding in Christ and Christ in us.

**If, you celebrate the Lord’s supper as a purely symbolic remembrance of Christ; how do you fulfill the requirement to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, in order to have life in you–in order to have eternal life and be raised on the last day? **

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna Scott

thank you for your many and detailled responses!

I’ve read them but didn’t find time to answer them. sorry

Well, I think, like in many theological points, Baptism is a matter of interpretation of the Holy Bible…

There are Verses that clearly speak of giving ones life to Jesus, meaning believing in Him, without an explicit reference that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Like John 1:12, John 3:3-6 - also Matthew 3:11 is good or Luke 3:7.

Actually, Richard Kastner, although being a SDA, has answered questions concerning baptism quite often here very detailled and good IMO.

in Christ,
Esdra

Esdra,

I appreciate the Scripture references, but none of them deny the Sacramental nature of Baptism. Again, we must consider Scripture as a whole. We can’t pick and choose which passages we will accept and which passages we reject. Well, I suppose that is done all the time, but that doesn’t do justice to Holy Scripture.

How can one claim that Baptism is purely symbolic, when it is connected with the forgiveness of sin and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Acts 2:38:
38And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

How do you interpret the other Scriptures I posted on Baptism?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Esdra]

If, you celebrate the Lord’s supper as a purely symbolic remembrance of Christ; how do you fulfill the requirement to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, in order to have life in you–in order to have eternal life and be raised on the last day?

Peace,
Anna

I’ve read in the Barcley Commentary to the Holy Bible (William Barclay is a Presbyterian priest, member of the Church of Scotland to be exact) that “Jesus uses for eating believing and for believing eating”. - I haven’t found out myself what he exactley means with that…
I got these Books (meaning the paper form of the CD you’ll see in the link) as a birthday present from my Baptist pastor (I am myself not sure, if he knew that Barclay sometimes writes contrary to the Baptist belief and even uses quotes from the Apocrypha [and in this case I mean NOT the Roman Catholic deuterocanonical books!].

Nevertheless, it’s a good commentary and a study worth.

I think Barclay meant with his comment on John 6 that Jesus was talking figuratively and used for believing (in Him) eating. I think John Chapter 6 is one of the most difficult passages to explain… - And yes, I know it’s your (Catholic) favourite quote when discussing the Real Presence!
So I come to my next point which is that you Catholics (also here in CAF) are no better than we Protestants when using only parts of the Holy Scripture to “prove” that the other one is “wrong”. - As you have correctly stated in your previous post.

So, my own opinion regarding the RP is that Jesus was talking indeed figuratively in John Chapter 6 and that not an “unbloody sacrifice” is needed every Sunday - Jesus IS the perfect sacrifice and we are reconciled through this sacrifice with God when we believe in Him, Jesus Christ.
So, the Last Supper is “only” a meal in remembrance what Jesus did for us on the cross.

 

[Esdra]

Esdra,

I appreciate the Scripture references, but none of them deny the Sacramental nature of Baptism. Again, we must consider Scripture as a whole. We can’t pick and choose which passages we will accept and which passages we reject. Well, I suppose that is done all the time, but that doesn’t do justice to Holy Scripture.

How can one claim that Baptism is purely symbolic, when it is connected with the forgiveness of sin and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Acts 2:38:
38And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

How do you interpret the other Scriptures I posted on Baptism?

Peace,
Anna

But on the other side there are also no scripture references that explicitly say that Baptism is a sacrament and needed for salvation. - So we have a patt. - Or in poker you would say, We have a split pot!

In Acts 11,15-18 people also recieved the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptised!! - So baptism is not necessary for recieving the Holy Spirit!

Actually, I think the question of the sacramental character of Baptism is even more complicated then our other topic which is the Real Presence. - Especially because only Baptists, Anabaptists and SDA (as well as cults as LDS and it’s splitter-groups and Jehovah’s Wittnesses) believe it.

I only know what I’ve been taught concerning this matter from my pastor and from preaches in the Baptist Church.
I also read a lot of “Early Church Fathers” of the Reformed Evangelical Churches (especially the Heidelberg Catechism and the various confessions * and they DO believe in the sacramental Character of Baptism and they also teach that it is needed for salvation.

I can tell you from the Baptist view that all men are sinners and that you are saved by enthrusting one’s life to Jesus, who being god died for our sins on the cross, by the grace of God. And not through works, and also not through sacraments - only through grace.
And all other things like going to service on Sundays, going to Bible study groups or Prayer evenings, as well as baptism are “acts of obedience” or what I prefer: Acts out of love to Our Lord. (cf. “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” - John 14:15)

Dear Anna,

if you want me to write something concerning Scripture - please give me the verses “one by one” as you did with your previous two posts. - Then it’s easier for me. Your other posts, where you have all the verses is just too much and I really don’t want to read that through again. - It’s also a matter of time. Often I just have some minutes and reading and then answering in detail a big post is nearly impossible.

Thanks.

in Christ,*

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’ve read in the Barcley Commentary to the Holy Bible (William Barclay is a Presbyterian priest, member of the Church of Scotland to be exact) that “Jesus uses for eating believing and for believing eating”. - I haven’t found out myself what he exactley means with that…
I got these Books (meaning the paper form of the CD you’ll see in the link) as a birthday present from my Baptist pastor (I am myself not sure, if he knew that Barclay sometimes writes contrary to the Baptist belief and even uses quotes from the Apocrypha [and in this case I mean NOT the Roman Catholic deuterocanonical books!].

Nevertheless, it’s a good commentary and a study worth.

I think Barclay meant with his comment on John 6 that Jesus was talking figuratively and used for believing (in Him) eating. I think John Chapter 6 is one of the most difficult passages to explain… - And yes, I know it’s your (Catholic) favourite quote when discussing the Real Presence!
So I come to my next point which is that you Catholics (also here in CAF) are no better than we Protestants when using only parts of the Holy Scripture to “prove” that the other one is “wrong”. - As you have correctly stated in your previous post.

So, my own opinion regarding the RP is that Jesus was talking indeed figuratively in John Chapter 6 and that not an “unbloody sacrifice” is needed every Sunday - Jesus IS the perfect sacrifice and we are reconciled through this sacrifice with God when we believe in Him, Jesus Christ.
So, the Last Supper is “only” a meal in remembrance what Jesus did for us on the cross.

Esdra,

Please be careful with the “you Catholics” references. I’m an Anglican Catholic, not in Communion with Rome.

I have said a number of times on this thread, that Scripture must be taken as a whole. Those who do not believe any Graces are imparted during the Lord’s Supper use certain Scriptures, but usually ignore John Chapter 6. That is why John Chapter 6 comes up so often in these discussions.

I’m not sure how Baptists can claim “Jesus uses eating for believing and believing for eating,” when they take other Scriptures so literally. Creation is a good example. SBC insists that the world was created in 6 literal days, because that is what Genesis says. Yet, that claim Christ doesn’t mean what he says regarding consuming His Body and Blood.

In John 6:55, Jesus said, "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Wouldn’t this have been a good place to clarify that feeding/eating means believing? Instead, Christ said His Flesh is true food and His Blood is true drink. Did He not really mean true food and true drink?

Let’s try out the “believing for eating” idea by making the substitutions in just a few passages of Scripture.

---

John 6:48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Substitution of believing for eating/drinking would read:
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers believed the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may believe of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone believes of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

---

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Substitution of believing for eating/drinking would read:
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you believe the flesh of the Son of Man and believe his blood, you have no life in you.

---

That would mean we must believe the flesh and blood of Christ in order to have life in us. Does that make sense?

Also, how do you decide when Christ is speaking figuratively and when he is speaking literally, other than the obvious parables?

Also, if you are going to believe what you were told–that eating really means believing, you have departed from the “Bible alone” idea (though you may not believe in Sola Scriptura.)

I appreciate your comments. Good discussion.
Anna

 

[Esdra]

…

I appreciate your comments. Good discussion.
Anna

Hi Anna,

yes, of course! Sorry, I forgot that you are NOT in communion with Rome.
But you would label yourself catholic, wouldn’t you?
Normally Hight Church Anglicans/Episcopoleans (as well as PNCC and Old Catholics in communion with the Utrecht See) label themselves catholic- but, as the Old Catholic Church Innsbruck writes on her homepage, “top-less” [The German term is better in this case! ]

Concerning our conversation I’de like to share something with you: I am registered for the Newsletter of the Community of Christ, which is a LDS sect and this week’s newsletter contains the following:

You Will Be My Witnesses

By Stassi Cramm, Council of Twelve Apostles

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” He replied, “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” —Acts 1:6–8

Like the disciples before us, God invites us to the Lord’s Supper. At this table, we have the opportunity to remember the One whose name we claim. At this table, we spiritually form “a true and living expression of the life, sacrifice, resurrection, and continuing presence of Christ."

Inherent in this sacrament is the divine call for the church to be a sacramental offering for the blessing, healing, and peace of creation” (Doctrine and Covenants 164:4c).

…]

in Christ,

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna,

yes, of course! Sorry, I forgot that you are NOT in communion with Rome.
But you would label yourself catholic, wouldn’t you?
Normally Hight Church Anglicans/Episcopoleans (as well as PNCC and Old Catholics in communion with the Utrecht See) label themselves catholic- but

Esdra,

The Doctrine and Covenants have nothing to do with the discussion regarding Baptists and Sacraments. If you want to bring Mormon material into the discussion, I would recommend starting a thread on the Mormon view of the Lord’s Supper.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Esdra]

Yes, I do call myself Catholic, however Catholics in Communion with Rome would disagree that Anglicans are Catholic as they understand the word.

 

[Esdra]

I appreciate your comments. Good discussion.
Anna

Okay, and now to your post itself: As I said, Barclay writes in his commentary that Jesus uses for believing eating and for eating believing.
But I think he didn’t mean to exchange the words eating and believing literally, like you did here!

I think it’s best if I copy the whole passage into this post:

Okay, I tried to find the commentary online - but I couldn’t.
As soon as I find it, I’ll post the said quote then we can reasonably discuss further.

in Christ,

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, I know that. Therefore I’ve written catholic with a small c! For me this doesn’t make any difference. The Orthodox, the Catholic Churches in communion in Rome and the ones which are not are all catholic for me. They all have more or less the same liturgy, they believe in the Real Presence, in the seven sacraments etc.
They are all so to speak “High Churches”.

No, I haven’t intended to bring in Mormon material in at all.
In this newsletter only by chance they quote the D&C, normally there are no references of the D&C and the BoM in their newsletters.

The newer parts of the CofChrist D&C are more “pastoral letters” and have really little to do with the D&C of Joseph Smith Junior. - No, my point actually only was the first paragraph of said newsletter.
As you may know or not, I am quite influenced by Mormon thinking because I’ve studied for quite a time know the one or other location the Book of Mormon (and seldom the Doctrine and Covenants - Community of Christ Edition). - And their understanding of the Lord’s Supper isn’t too far away of mainstream protestant churches.
So my point is (and Publisher will certainly agree with me here, as he also has studied the BoM) that the BoM is quite a “Baptist book”.

Esdra,

But you have brought Mormon material into the discussion, by quoting it; and by saying “the Book of Mormon is quite a Baptist Book.”

I am very familiar with Mormon history and doctrine. I was a member of the LDS Church for a brief time. I left shortly after Baptism, when I learned what Mormons really believe. I’ve posted on numerous threads here about Mormon doctrine and history. I have no desire to enter this discussion again.

Again, if you want to relate D&C or the Book of Mormon to Baptist beliefs about the Lord’s Supper and Baptism–start a new thread and be up front about what you want to discuss.

There may be other forum members who would like to enter this discussion. However, since I’m not interested in a discussion involving Mormon beliefs to any extent; **I’m signing off this thread.
**
Peace,
Anna

 

[Esdra]

Esdra,

But you have brought Mormon material into the discussion, by quoting it; and by saying “the Book of Mormon is quite a Baptist Book.”

I am very familiar with Mormon history and doctrine. I was a member of the LDS Church for a brief time. I left shortly after Baptism, when I learned what Mormons really believe. I’ve posted on numerous threads here about Mormon doctrine and history. I have no desire to enter this discussion again.

Again, if you want to relate D&C or the Book of Mormon to Baptist beliefs about the Lord’s Supper and Baptism–start a new thread and be up front about what you want to discuss.

There may be other forum members who would like to enter this discussion. However, since I’m not interested in a discussion involving Mormon beliefs to any extent; **I’m signing off this thread.
**
Peace,
Anna

Please don’t confuse CofChrist and LDS!
The Community of Christ is a Christian denomination (in the meantime) and don’t teach the “non-Christian stuff” the LDS teach.
Why do you think i started studying CoC instead of LDS? Because I realized through various E-Mails and by reading their sacred Scriptures (I am talking about the Pearl of Great Price here and the LDS-Version of the D&C!) that the LDS is NOT Christian at all!
The Community of Christ is (despite using the BoM and their version of the D&C; although even that gets rarer.) a Protestant denomination just like the LCMS or any other. - And they are getting year-by-year more Mainstream Protestants.

 

[Esdra]

The newer parts of the CofChrist D&C are more “pastoral letters” and have really little to do with the D&C of Joseph Smith Junior. - No, my point actually only was the first paragraph of said newsletter…

… which would be this:

Acts 1:6–8

Like the disciples before us, God invites us to the Lord’s Supper. At this table, we have the opportunity to remember the One whose name we claim. At this table, we spiritually form “a true and living expression of the life, sacrifice, resurrection, and continuing presence of Christ."

That was my point and nothing more.

 

[1holycatholic]

+There are only two of the Seven (7) Sacraments in our wonderful Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church which are recognized by the Church as not requiring an ordained Catholic priest . . . the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Marriage . . . however . . . the Church’s position re the requirements for a marriage to be recognized as valid . . . under Holy Mother Church’s Canon Law . . . there are very specific requirements that must be met . . .

This is correct. The Church is the custodian of the seven Sacraments entrusted to her by Christ. Protestant denominations have no authority to make any declarations regarding the Sacraments. Baptists have two Sacraments: the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Marriage. Whether they recognize this or not is another matter altogether.

 

[Esdra]

This is correct. The Church is the custodian of the seven Sacraments entrusted to her by Christ. Protestant denominations have no authority to make any declarations regarding the Sacraments. Baptists have two Sacraments: the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Marriage. Whether they recognize this or not is another matter altogether.

Well, I am sure you are aware that the Baptists don’t recognise the Catholic (infant-)baptism.
Otherwise they wouldn’t be Baptists (eng. to baptise)!
**
Anybody here who can tell me if Baptists would accept an adult-baptism of the CC?** - That just came to my mind and I’m really wondering.
I know that they accept adult-baptism of otheranabaptist Churches (important! “anabaptist” with a small a. I mean those denominations who don’t believe in infant-baptism and not a specific one in this case.)