In-laws have been re-baptized??

[Randy_Carson]

all Christians who receive one baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are part of the church catholic.

And all Christians who receive one baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are part of the Catholic Church.

They just don’t know it. YET.

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

And all Christians who receive one baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are part of the Catholic Church.

They just don’t know it.

YET.

“We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
-Saint Augustine

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
- Ignatius of Antioch

“Outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism” (Treatise on Rebaptism 10 [A.D. 256]).
- Cyprian of Carthage

Let’s not play word games here. You’re inside the Church, or outside of it. Yes, baptism may be recognized by other Christians. And what is in your heart is known only by God. But the physical church, on earth (not Luther’s invisible church!) is clearly seen, defined and known.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,

The Lutheran church is NOT in communion. Ask your bishop. You can call it “sort of Catholic” or whatever you like but it is NOT in communion, any more than Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists or Pastor John’s Church of the Savior on Main Street. They most certainly do not “accept the teachings of the Catholic Church,” hence the violence and upheaval of the Protestant Reformation, which led to thousands of deaths and excommunications and, eventually, to the thousands of new churches ever since.

Yes, I am quite aware that the Lutheran Church is not in full communion with the Catholic Church. That is not what I said. I don’t have to ask my bishop. My only point is that the Lutheran Church is much closer to the fullness of truth than your average Bible church springing up on every corner, point being that the people in question are going the wrong direction, rejecting even those truths on which the Catholic and Lutheran Churches agree.

 

[steido01]

“We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
-Saint Augustine

Roman Catholic friends, please correct me if I’m mistaken, but being born and raised a “separated brother” in a non-Roman Catholic communion, doesn’t that absolve me of accusations of heresy and schism, since I was never formally a “Roman Catholic” to begin with?

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
- Ignatius of Antioch

I’m not sure what Ignatius’ account about the Docetists denying the Real Presence has to do with this conversation, but it’s a good thing that both Lutherans and Roman Catholics profess Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist!

“Outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism” (Treatise on Rebaptism 10 [A.D. 256]).
- Cyprian of Carthage

Let’s not play word games here. You’re inside the Church, or outside of it. Yes, baptism may be recognized by other Christians. And what is in your heart is known only by God. But the physical church, on earth (not Luther’s invisible church!) is clearly seen, defined and known.

No word game here. Baptism isn’t merely “recognized by other Christians;” those baptisms performed by “other Christians” are recognized as valid by the Roman Catholic Church (assuming, of course, that they were performed according to proper Trinitarian formula). Almost anyone can baptize.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I have never heard of a “re-baptism” so long as the person was baptized using the Trinitarian forum.

Perhaps someone can explain why an infant baptism would be considered invalid if the person later on joins an Evangelical church? I understand the Baptist/ Evangelical idea behind preferring adult baptism but never heard of people being re-baptized if they initially received this sacrament as a baby in a Lutheran church.

 

[SteveVH]

Roman Catholic friends, please correct me if I’m mistaken, but being born and raised a “separated brother” in a non-Roman Catholic communion, doesn’t that absolve me of accusations of heresy and schism, since I was never formally a “Roman Catholic” to begin with?

You cannot be considered a heretic, even though you may believe in heretical teachings. And you cannot be considered a schismatic since, as you say, you were never a member to begin with. I don’t think you can properly be called a Protestant since you are not protesting anything. But you belong to a faith tradition that can be traced back to heresy and schism and protest and division from the original Church. So, to the extent that you believe any heresy that might have crept into your faith tradition, you would be in error, regardless of whether or not you initiated the error.

No word game here. Baptism isn’t merely “recognized by other Christians;” those baptisms performed by “other Christians” are recognized as valid by the Roman Catholic Church (assuming, of course, that they were performed according to proper Trinitarian formula). Almost anyone can baptize.

Correct.

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

I have never heard of a “re-baptism” so long as the person was baptized using the Trinitarian forum.

Perhaps someone can explain why an infant baptism would be considered invalid if the person later on joins an Evangelical church? I understand the Baptist/ Evangelical idea behind preferring adult baptism but never heard of people being re-baptized if they initially received this sacrament as a baby in a Lutheran church.

Read Acts 8:37.

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

Steido,

Who accused YOU of being a heretic? Wow.

If quotations from the early church fathers are taken that personally, you may have to avoid a whole bunch of documents on this website. I’m serious.

I regret that there is so often an air of hostility or defensiveness around here. I regret if I have made it worse. I also regret that in this entire discussion thread, apparently no one is concerned or acknowledging the importance of conversion, of truly making Jesus the boss, and how that relates (or doesn’t) to what church at which one worships.

Just questions, answers, friendly advice… if someone is not interested or not desiring the opinions of others, one ought not participate in internet forums, as that is precisely what they exist to provide.

I pray you all have a blessed week.

(final post on this one…)

 

[ltwin]

I have never heard of a “re-baptism” so long as the person was baptized using the Trinitarian forum.

Perhaps someone can explain why an infant baptism would be considered invalid if the person later on joins an Evangelical church? I understand the Baptist/ Evangelical idea behind preferring adult baptism but never heard of people being re-baptized if they initially received this sacrament as a baby in a Lutheran church.

Baptists and Evangelicals typically believe that baptism is an expression of faith and an appeal to God for a good conscience. Therefore, to be baptized as an infant is simply not baptism. Infant baptism is simply indicative of the parent’s desire and intention to raise the child in the Christian faith, similar to the evangelical practice of dedicating children. While such an intention is praiseworthy, their children will need to be baptized on their own confession of faith and intention to live a Christian life.

One need not, from an evangelical perspective, see adult baptism as a repudiation of infant baptism so much as an affirmation of the parent’s decision to raise them as Christian.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Baptists and Evangelicals typically believe that baptism is an expression of faith and an appeal to God for a good conscience. Therefore, to be baptized as an infant is simply not baptism. Infant baptism is simply indicative of the parent’s desire and intention to raise the child in the Christian faith, similar to the evangelical practice of dedicating children. While such an intention is praiseworthy, their children will need to be baptized on their own confession of faith and intention to live a Christian life.

One need not, from an evangelical perspective, see adult baptism as a repudiation of infant baptism so much as an affirmation of the parent’s decision to raise them as Christian.

Thanks Itwin,

I did not know that adult re-baptism was required of those who were initially baptized as an infant. It reminds me of Confirmation. Lutherans believe that confirmation, which usually occurs around the age of 14 or older, is an extension of Holy Baptism, that the individual doesn’t need God parents to proclaim faith in God.

Does an Evangelical Christian need to be baptized before receiving Holy Communion?

 

[steido01]

Steido,

Who accused YOU of being a heretic? Wow.

If quotations from the early church fathers are taken that personally, you may have to avoid a whole bunch of documents on this website. I’m serious.

I regret that there is so often an air of hostility or defensiveness around here. I regret if I have made it worse. I also regret that in this entire discussion thread, apparently no one is concerned or acknowledging the importance of conversion, of truly making Jesus the boss, and how that relates (or doesn’t) to what church at which one worships.

Just questions, answers, friendly advice… if someone is not interested or not desiring the opinions of others, one ought not participate in internet forums, as that is precisely what they exist to provide.

I pray you all have a blessed week.

(final post on this one…)

Believe me, I don’t take offense to much of anything people post on here. I lurked for several years before finally posting last year, and I think it’s clear from my posts (which meagerly total more than some newcomers) that I am quite interested in learning and discussing the positions of others. I just like to make sure that those positions are accurately reflected.

I am averse to misunderstood positions, be they my own or, in this case, those of my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. Here you posted three quotes from the ECFs that, in the context you posted them, suggested that Lutherans are not part of the church. This seems quite at odds with Roman Catholic teaching regarding who is part of the communion of saints. My intent in responding to your posts was to clarify Roman Catholic doctrine regarding the Sacrament of Baptism - in particular, how it brings all baptized Christians into a common communion, however imperfect that communion may be perceived to be (thanks, Randy and SteveVH for the assist! :tiphat.

Peace,

 

[ltwin]

Thanks Itwin,

I did not know that adult re-baptism was required of those who were initially baptized as an infant.

It’s only required in so far as baptism is required to fully participate in the life of the local church. Evangelicals are not of one mind on this. Some evangelical churches may require baptism as a condition of church membership, while other churches simply offer opportunities and encourage people to be baptized but they do not “require” it for full participation in the life of the church. This latter tendency derives from the fact that evangelicals see the conversion experience as a person’s entry into the church.

It reminds me of Confirmation. Lutherans believe that confirmation, which usually occurs around the age of 14 or older, is an extension of Holy Baptism, that the individual doesn’t need God parents to proclaim faith in God.

Baptism functions like confirmation for many evangelicals. If you are raised in the church, you are typically baptized at ages that approximate confirmation. Seven and up would be typical I’d think.

Does an Evangelical Christian need to be baptized before receiving Holy Communion?

Some evangelical churches on the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum may practice forms of closed communion that may attach baptism as a requirement, but typically, at least in my experience, evangelical churches practice open communion for all those who believe in Christ as Lord and Savior. We’re pretty ecumenical in that respect.

 

[fallow_spirit]

It’s because they believe baptism is just an action that we perform, a symbol of our salvation that is done after one ‘accepts Christ’ and has no bearing on the actual saving act whatsoever. So it isn’t common for individuals who become Evangelical fundamentalists to get re-baptized after they realized that their baptism as an infant was ‘fake.’ I know about this, my Dad was baptized a baby as a Lutheran, then conditionally baptized by the Catholic Church, then he went and got himself baptized by one of these ‘Bible Churches’ during college. Only one of those events was an actual baptism the others were simply water being splashed on him (and hint: the time in college was not the valid one). That sort of careless attitude is common among evangelicals, at my church when I went to baptism classes recently (planning on get baptized at my current church since I do not want to risk what might happen in the wait to becoming Catholic), and there was an elderly lady there who stated that she had already been baptized before but that she wanted to have a do-over. She claimed her reason was that she re-dedicated herself to Christ. But that example sort of illustrates my points, to many evangelicals baptism isn’t really anything sacred but a sort of ‘rite of passage’ that can be repeated, repeated and repeated however many instances one might desire to.

 

[ltwin]

It’s because they believe baptism is just an action that we perform, a symbol of our salvation that is done after one ‘accepts Christ’ and has no bearing on the actual saving act whatsoever. So it isn’t common for individuals who become Evangelical fundamentalists to get re-baptized after they realized that their baptism as an infant was ‘fake.’ I know about this, my Dad was baptized a baby as a Lutheran, then conditionally baptized by the Catholic Church, then he went and got himself baptized by one of these ‘Bible Churches’ during college. Only one of those events was an actual baptism the others were simply water being splashed on him (and hint: the time in college was not the valid one). That sort of careless attitude is common among evangelicals, . . .

What, may I ask is “careless” about evangelicals or fundamentalists actually carrying out their convictions that baptism should occur after repentance? That may be offensive or nonsensical to a non-evangelical or a non-fundamentalist, but it can hardly be characterized as “careless” on their part. I find infant baptism misguided and ineffectual, but given what I know Catholics believe about baptism, I don’t find them living out those convictions and baptizing babies “careless.” It’s actually the responsible thing to do if you believe in Catholic theology.

. . . at my church when I went to baptism classes recently (planning on get baptized at my current church since I do not want to risk what might happen in the wait to becoming Catholic), and there was an elderly lady there who stated that she had already been baptized before but that she wanted to have a do-over. She claimed her reason was that she re-dedicated herself to Christ. But that example sort of illustrates my points, to many evangelicals baptism isn’t really anything sacred but a sort of ‘rite of passage’ that can be repeated, repeated and repeated however many instances one might desire to.

Well, apparently it’s sacred enough for some of us to want to “do-over” again.