Is this kind of BEACH Baptism Valid?

[normbetland]

I don’t think “valid” is the right connotation since its record is not used to try to determine the salvation of others. If you are going to do it since the baptism is about the public pronouncement of faith the attempt is to as best as possible do it the same way as they read Jesus was in their Bibles. It is not something to be hidden but something to be done out in the open

The Bible never teaches that Baptism is about a public pronouncement of faith, but does teach that baptism is for the remission of sins and to be united to Christ(salvation). See Mark 16, Acts 2, Acts 22, Romans 6, Galatians 3, Colossians 2, and 1 Peter 3 for starters. The Bible says a lot about baptism, but never once does it say that baptism is about some public testimony.

This is why Catholics and other liturgical churches care about valid baptism because Jesus teaches that Baptism is to be done in the name of each of the Persons of the Trinity (Matt. 28). Since baptism is Biblically required for salvation it is important that souls are being baptized properly. In addition, most other Sacraments (Holy Communion, Confirmation, Marriage, and Holy Orders specifically) of the Church will not be given to someone who is unbaptized because they are not Christian. Hence the reason we care about valid/invalid Baptism.

 

[fbl9]

**I don’t think “valid” is the right connotation since its record is not used to try to determine the salvation of others. **If you are going to do it since the baptism is about the public pronouncement of faith the attempt is to as best as possible do it the same way as they read Jesus was in their Bibles. It is not something to be hidden but something to be done out in the open

But the Catholic Church does not teach osas. So it not used for determining anything. I am sure you have your own way to determine if one is saved or not.

 

[normbetland]

But the Catholic Church does not teach osas. So it not used for determining anything. I am sure you have your own way to determine if one is saved or not.

Right, but it does teach once baptized always baptized. For instance when a person wants to become Catholic it is important to know if they are baptized or not. If they are, they cannot be baptized again, and if they aren’t they need to be. It also teaches that other Sacraments cannot be administered to non-Baptized persons, since Baptism is the official beginning of the road to salvation this is important.

 

[ltwin]

But the Catholic Church does not teach osas. So it not used for determining anything.

But Catholics do believe that baptism leaves a change upon the soul (not sure if the terminology is correct or not).

I am sure you have your own way to determine if one is saved or not.

We can’t determine who is saved or not. We are capable of determining Christian conduct and un-Christian conduct. We are capable of noticing whether someone displays un-Christian conduct over a long period of time, and such a pattern can lead us to determine that a person may have fallen into a backslidden state or is in a spiritual rut. However, we can’t look into someone’s heart and say, “You are saved.” We can only take note of what a person professes and if that matches their conduct. We can offer guidance and correction, but determining the exact state of someone’s soul is impossible. All of us are sinners and at some point our conduct will not match our profession of faith. At that point, we have to take a hard look at ourselves and repent.

 

[fbl9]

But Catholics do believe that baptism leaves a change upon the soul (not sure if the terminology is correct or not).

We can’t determine who is saved or not. We are capable of determining Christian conduct and un-Christian conduct. We are capable of noticing whether someone displays un-Christian conduct over a long period of time, and such a pattern can lead us to determine that a person may have fallen into a backslidden state or is in a spiritual rut. However, we can’t look into someone’s heart and say, “You are saved.” We can only take note of what a person professes and if that matches their conduct. We can offer guidance and correction, but determining the exact state of someone’s soul is impossible. All of us are sinners and at some point our conduct will not match our profession of faith. At that point, we have to take a hard look at ourselves and repent.

When one accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior, what’s that phrase that’s used? I was “saved”. Or the common question" have you been saved yet"?

 

[ltwin]

When one accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior, what’s that phrase that’s used? I was “saved”. Or the common question" have you been saved yet"?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at? I use the word “saved” to describe my relationship with Christ. I am “saved.” But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a possibility that I backslide. And just because I say I’m “saved” at anyone moment of time doesn’t mean I actually am. The Christian life is based on faith. If you lose faith in Christ, then you lose any basis for saying you are saved. And those who love Christ follow Christ’s commandments, so if someone does not have love for Christ and others and is living in chronic disobedience, then we have no basis to accept their confession of being “saved.”

 

[fbl9]

We can’t determine who is saved or not. t.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at? I use the word “saved” to describe my relationship with Christ. I am “saved.” But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a possibility that I backslide. And just because I say I’m “saved” at anyone moment of time doesn’t mean I actually am. The Christian life is based on faith. If you lose faith in Christ, then you lose any basis for saying you are saved. And those who love Christ follow Christ’s commandments, so if someone does not have love for Christ and others and is living in chronic disobedience, then we have no basis to accept their confession of being “saved.”

Basically the saying “i am saved” is just an empty phrase.
Your commarde tells me that the Church uses baptism to say if one is saved or not, which it does not.Then you tell me that one can’t tell if another is saved yet you say you are saved. makes no real sense.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

“If you were baptized off a boat dock, you might just be a redneck.”

• Jeff Foxworthy

And if you had to untie the bass boat to make room for the baptism, you ARE a redneck.

 

[ltwin]

Basically the saying “i am saved” is just an empty phrase.
Your commarde tells me that the Church uses baptism to say if one is saved or not, which it does not.

I did not say the Catholic Church said baptism saved. I have heard countless times on this thread that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul----Where Did I Mention Salvation In That? No, I’m simply trying to clarify the difference between beliefs about the affects of baptism. Catholics believe that baptism does something wonderful to the soul, which is not what evangelicals believe.

Then you tell me that one can’t tell if another is saved yet you say you are saved. makes no real sense.

No, it doesn’t make sense until you understand how evangelicals are defining the term. I’ve tried to explain that it does not mean once saved always saved (though there are people who believe in OSAS), it does not mean that all you do is pray a sinners pray and get into heaven no questions asked. Being saved is the entire Christian life. From the moment we put our trust and hope in Christ, we ARE saved in a very real sense. We are saved from sin and saved from ourselves. Whether we persevere and continue in the salvation that we have received is up to us, with God’s grace helping and strengthening us.

Also, there is a big difference in me testifying that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, thus making me saved if I have truly made Jesus my Lord and Savior, and me looking at other people and applying worldly criteria to their lives in order to determine if they are saved. We are not qualified to judge whether others are saved or not, just as other people are not qualified to judge whether we are saved. These are fundamentally matters of the heart, which no one but God can understand.

 

[SteveVH]

And if you had to untie the bass boat to make room for the baptism, you ARE a redneck.

 

[andrewstx]

That isn’t the point. The point is that a lot of theological terms are not used in the Bible. Such terms are not sacrosanct, and we’re under no obligation to use them.

Not just for the sake of being different from Catholics, but more importantly to be clear as to what we mean. The term “sacrament” is not a bad term, and it has been used by many evangelical Protestants. A sacrament can be defined as “an outward ceremony of the Church, ordained as a visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace … a sign of the union of the soul with God.” However, often times people confuse the definition of a sacrament with “sacramentalism” as associated with the Catholic Church. The term “ordinance” is used not as a protest against Catholics, but as to be clearer about what those who use the term actually mean. By using the term “ordinance” we can avoid confusion.

I am. Do I count?

What do you mean? No Protestant is in 100% agreement with the Catholic Church “on baptism, Eucharist, etc” and most do believe to some degree or another that “the Church lost its way very early but got it right on the canon of NT and a few doctrines.”

Actually Episcopalians and Lutherans have nearly identical baptismal beliefs as Catholics, niether one of those churches believes in a “great, or total apostacy”.

You seem to think of Protestants as only evangelicals as fundamentalists or literalists ,which is not the fact.

There is much diversity amoung Protestants.

 

[Indifferently]

Actually Episcopalians and Lutherans have nearly identical baptismal beliefs as Catholics, niether one of those churches believes in a “great, or total apostacy”.

You seem to think of Protestants as only evangelicals as fundamentalists or literalists ,which is not the fact.

There is much diversity amoung Protestants.

This is correct.

 

[ltwin]

Actually Episcopalians and Lutherans have nearly identical baptismal beliefs as Catholics, niether one of those churches believes in a “great, or total apostacy”.

The statement I was responding to was not limited to baptism but to “denying the orthodox teaching on baptism, Eucharist etc and claim the Church lost its way very early but got it right on the canon of NT and a few doctrines”. While not all Protestants believe in a “great, or total apostacy,” all Protestants by definitions do believe that the Catholic Church has got it wrong on somethings.

You seem to think of Protestants as only evangelicals as fundamentalists or literalists ,which is not the fact.

Actually, I don’t think that at all.

There is much diversity amoung Protestants.

I’m aware.

 

[epan]

Why not do it at the beach, and have a barbecue to celebrate afterwards? I don’t think that “smells and bells”, or men in centuries old garb makes a religious rite more sincere or valid. I’m sure we are all aware of the argument that a freely chosen baptism, by an adult, has a certain validity which baptizing an infant, who has no such awareness, lacks.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m sure we are all aware of the argument that a freely chosen baptism, by an adult, has a certain validity which baptizing an infant, who has no such awareness, lacks.

Which is no argument at all if one correctly understands the nature of the sacrament; that it is an action of the Holy Spirit and not of man. While, by the nature of the case, an adult would have to consent to baptism, it is no more valid than an infant baptism. The same cleansing grace is given freely to both with the same effect. God does not withold his saving grace from the most innocent among us. If that person wishes to squander the grace received at baptism later in life he or she is perfectly free to do so.

 

[epan]

Which is no argument at all if one correctly understands the nature of the sacrament; that it is an action of the Holy Spirit and not of man. While, by the nature of the case, an adult would have to consent to baptism, it is no more valid than an infant baptism. The same cleansing grace is given freely to both with the same effect. God does not withold his saving grace from the most innocent among us. If that person wishes to squander the grace received at baptism later in life he or she is perfectly free to do so.

No come on… saying that any other view than the “catholic” one is “no argument” is self invalidating, out of necessity, because we are talking about faith. Until you can actually prove something which is based on faith, you have no ground to try to invalidate any other argument, other than faith, of course.

 

[SteveVH]

No come on… saying that any other view than the “catholic” one is “no argument” is self invalidating, out of necessity, because we are talking about faith. Until you can actually prove something which is based on faith, you have no ground to try to invalidate any other argument, other than faith, of course.

I invalidate it based upon the fact that the understanding and definition of a “sacrament” has been bastardized and forgotten by those who chose to separate themselves from the Church. The majority of Protestant denominations wouldn’t have a clue as to how to define a sacrament because the entire idea is absent from their practices (which is fine because they have no authority by which to administer the sacraments). So the fact that those who have separated from the original Church have an erroneous idea of something held by the Church since the Apostles does not make a valid argument.

What is interesting is that those denominations that came into existence closest to the Reformation movement retained the Catholic understanding (Lutherans, Anglicans). It is only those further removed in time that seem to lack understanding.