Protestant claims baptism not necessary - help!

[JonNC]

I’ve encountered several Protestant teachings on Baptism.

There is no such thing. Which communions?

Yeah. He and I have gone round and round on this several times, through the years. I contend that, because Protestants, no matter what they call themselves, believe in private interpretation of Scripture,

This is false. You mentioned the Book of Concord, please find such a quote. As a matter of fact, sola scriptura is contrary to personal interpretation.

I can’t be specific about what each Protestants teach

Sure you can. It is called asking people what they believe, then asking which communion they are a member of. If you can’t remember, don’t comment inaccurately.

most of the Protestants I’ve encountered don’t care about the “Little Catechism” nor about the “Book of Concord”.

Exactly, so don’t misrepresent those that do by inaccurately grouping using the term Protestant.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I think what we’re seeing here is some Catholics’ being so excited to argue against a Lutheran that they forget themselves and argue against your defense of the Catholic position.

A funny situation, to be sure.

 

[JonNC]

I think what we’re seeing here is some Catholics’ being so excited to argue against a Lutheran that they forget themselves and argue against your defense of the Catholic position.

A funny situation, to be sure.

With this particular poster, it happens all the time. This is what happens when polemics are more important than facts.

 

[De_Maria]

You are defending “ believers’ baptism”. Why?

I’m explaining Catholic Teaching. As the Catholic Church Teaches in her Scriptures:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

There is no such thing. Which communions?

Several. But that isn’t the topic of this thread. Do you believe that Baptism is necessary or not?

This is false. You mentioned the Book of Concord, please find such a quote. As a matter of fact, sola scriptura is contrary to personal interpretation.

Non sequitur. The Book of Concord can’t force Protestants to believe everything it teaches and many don’t.

Sure you can.

Neh. But if you think you can, then you do it.

It is called asking people what they believe, then asking which communion they are a member of. If you can’t remember, don’t comment inaccurately.

Lol! I’m not commenting inaccurately. But you seem to be avoiding the topic of the thread. Focus, grasshoppa!

Exactly, so don’t misrepresent those that do by inaccurately grouping using the term Protestant.

The term encompasses the entire group and if the shoe fits, you can wear it. If it doesn’t, why are you so twisted over it? Me thinks the lady complains too much.

Anyway, the topic is about those Protestant who deny the necessity of baptism. Do you? If you do, then defend your position. If not, then, how do you respond to whose who do?

 

[De_Maria]

I think what we’re seeing here is some Catholics’ being so excited to argue against a Lutheran that they forget themselves and argue against your defense of the Catholic position.

A funny situation, to be sure.

I’ve never known JonNC to defend any Catholic Doctrine. Please point out the one you think he’s defending now.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

You are defending “ believers’ baptism”. Why?

I’m explaining Catholic Teaching. As the Catholic Church Teaches in her Scriptures:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Really. Do Catholics believe that infants become disciples before baptism and teaching?

 

[De_Maria]

Really. Do Catholics believe that infants become disciples before baptism and teaching?

If you understood Catholic Doctrine, you would know that
RCIA only applies for adults. See the Council of Trent, VI

CHAPTER V.
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification,
and whence it proceeds.

 

[fhansen]

Scripture can be plausibly argued either way on this matter, as it can be with many others-which is why the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, with some fellow picking up the bible centuries after it was written and just knowing what it means to say, is a bona fide joke. The ancient churches, in both the east and the west, have considered baptism to be necessary, in obedience to Jesus’s command and example, from time immemorial. God can override any of His directives of course, but to the extent that we’re able we must follow His will.

 

[De_Maria]

With this particular poster, it happens all the time. This is what happens when polemics are more important than facts.

But you’re the one with the polemics. You seem to be afraid to face the fact that Protestants believe in the private interpretation of Scripture, regardless of what your catechisms say.

 

[adf417]

Many who?..

My suggestion would to read more of the non-Catholic posts Jon. There is plenty of evidence.

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

Several. But that isn’t the topic of this thread. Do you believe that Baptism is necessary or not?

I’m happy you finally recognized that.

Yes.

The Book of Concord can’t force Protestants to believe everything it teaches and many don’t.

Exactly. Since Protestant doesn’t refer to a particular communion or belief.

Lol! I’m not commenting inaccurately. But you seem to be avoiding the topic of the thread. Focus, grasshoppa!

When you say, “Protestants believe…”, it will most likely be inaccurate.

The term encompasses the entire group and if the shoe fits, you can wear it

No. It actually encompasses those who participated in the formal protest at the Diet of Speyer in 1529. Today it is used as a term referring generally to those western communions not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[JonNC]

De_Maria:

Really. Do Catholics believe that infants become disciples before baptism and teaching?

If you understood Catholic Doctrine, you would know that
RCIA only applies for adults. See the Council of Trent, VI

CHAPTER V.
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification,
and whence it proceeds.

No one was talking about RCIA. We were talking about baptism.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Many who?..

My suggestion would to read more of the non-Catholic posts Jon. There is plenty of evidence.

Peace!!!

And they are from different communions. The practice of claiming they are all of the same communion is disingenuous and uncharitable. The is what the poster regularly does.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

JonNC:

Many who?..

My suggestion would to read more of the non-Catholic posts Jon. There is plenty of evidence.

Peace!!!

And they are from different communions. The practice of claiming they are all of the same communion is disingenuous and uncharitable. The is what the poster regularly does.

Jon the fact that “many” non-Catholic “Protestants” do not understand your position of “different communions” does not negate their own positions that they are not of different communions. Weather they are or are not is not what this discussion is about no matter how much you try to steer it that way.

The fact remains that “many” non-Catholic Christians come here to CAF to tell us their own understanding of baptism is the only true form of baptism and my guess is most of them do not grasp the “different communion” position and that is not the fault of Catholics on CAF. Please stop trying to blame on the CAFers. It is the fault of P
“Protestantism” of whatever term you choose to assign to “them”. I would add that whatever this term is i will do my best as a brother Christian to teach it and use it appropriately within dialogue.

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

Weather they are or are not is not what this discussion is about no matter how much you try to steer it that way.

Yes. It is not the discussion, but when a Catholic poster misrepresents what others believe, it seems appropriate to respond.

The fact remains that “many” non-Catholic Christians come here to CAF to tell us their own understanding of baptism is the only true form of baptism and my guess is most of them do not grasp the “different communion” position and that is not the fault of Catholics on CAF. Please stop trying to blame on the CAFers.

They bring their own understanding from their own communion. In fact, I directed my comment on that matter to another poster whose position on baptism is different. That’s what we do here. I’m not blaming Catholics or CAFers of anything. I directed my comments about “Protestants” at one particular poster who regularly misrepresents what others believe. I believe that what we at CAF are permitted to do.

I would add that whatever this term is i will do my best as a brother Christian to teach it and use it appropriately within dialogue.

I’ve never expected anything less from you. You have always posted with charity and respect.

 

[JonNC]

HopkinsReb:

I think what we’re seeing here is some Catholics’ being so excited to argue against a Lutheran that they forget themselves and argue against your defense of the Catholic position.

A funny situation, to be sure.

I’ve never known JonNC to defend any Catholic Doctrine. Please point out the one you think he’s defending now.

Baptismal regeneration and infant baptism.

From the Augsburg Confession:

Article IX: Of Baptism.
[1]](http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article9.1) Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2)to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.
3)They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

From the Confutation:

To Article IX.
The ninth article, concerning Baptism - viz. that it is necessary to salvation, and that children ought to be baptized - is approved and accepted, and they are right in condemning the Anabaptists, a most seditious class of men that ought to be banished far from the boundaries of the Roman Empire in order that illustrious Germany may not suffer again such a destructive and sanguinary commotion as she experienced five years ago in the slaughter of so many thousands.

 

[anon91549587]

Is baptism the method of circumcision in the age of the new testament and beyond?

 

[De_Maria]

No. It actually encompasses those who participated in the formal protest at the Diet of Speyer in 1529. Today it is used as a term referring generally to those western communions not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

In your opinion. But you don’t control what Protestants think.

Yes.

Wonderful!

Exactly. Since Protestant doesn’t refer to a particular communion or belief.

I’m glad you finally acknowledged that the Book of Concord is not recognized by many Protestants.

When you say, “Protestants believe…”, it will most likely be inaccurate.

In your opinion, but as you previously learned, you don’t even know what all Lutherans believe. In every conversation we’ve had, you confuse what the book of Concord teaches with what individual Lutherans believe.

No one was talking about RCIA. We were talking about baptism.

You denied that the Catholic Church had requirements that adults must perform before Baptism. Therefore, I had to bring up RCIA. Since, you were apparently not aware that the Catholic Church holds different requirements for adults and children.

And they are from different communions. The practice of claiming they are all of the same communion is disingenuous and uncharitable. The is what the poster regularly does.

No one has claimed they are from the same communion. This is your strawman. We all recognize that the term Protestant is a large group who holds many contradicting beliefs but are only united by their opposition to the Catholic Church.

Yes. It is not the discussion, but when a Catholic poster misrepresents what others believe, it seems appropriate to respond.

You are the only one misrepresenting Protestant beliefs when you bring up the book of Concord and pretend that all Protestants hold those beliefs.

…I directed my comments about “Protestants” at one particular poster who regularly misrepresents what others believe. I believe that what we at CAF are permitted to do.

You’ve never been able to prove that claim. Whereas I have quoted other Protestants who embraced precisely what you claimed they did not believe. Between you and I, it is you who regularly misrepresents Protestant beliefs.

I said:

I’ve never known JonNC to defend any Catholic Doctrine. Please point out the one you think he’s defending now.

You replied:

Baptismal regeneration and infant baptism.

This is the first time you’ve mentioned those in our discussion. And this discussion is about the necessity of Baptism.

From the Augsburg Confession:

You already admitted that many Protestants don’t submit to the Augsburg Confession. And Catholics certainly don’t. So, why bring it up, again?

 

[JonNC]

In your opinion. But you don’t control what Protestants think.

History.

I’m glad you finally acknowledged that the Book of Concord is not recognized by many Protestants.

I never said it did. Each communion has, to some extent or another, their own confessional or doctrinal statement.
To expect these various communions to abide by the BoC is like expecting all South American countries to abide by, say, Brazil’s constitution.
And now you know why, when speaking of doctrine or practice, the use of the term Protestant is folly.

You denied that the Catholic Church had requirements that adults must perform before Baptism. Therefore, I had to bring up RCIA. Since, you were apparently not aware that the Catholic Church holds different requirements for adults and children.

lol. Where did I say that? What I said was the great commission calls for us to make disciples of all nations. To do that it says to baptize and to teach in that order. I stated it to someone who was defending believer’s baptism, which usually denies the validity of infant baptism.

The fact is there is no contradiction in scripture on this. For infants or small children, or in emergencies, baptism comes first. With adults, a level of teaching may come first, though baptism should not be delayed long. It is not either of, but both and, depending on the individual.

The Lutheran and Catholic teachings on Baptism are essentially the same.

This is the first time you’ve mentioned those in our discussion. And this discussion is about the necessity of Baptism.

That’s what I was talking to the other poster about. Common sense says you would have recognized that.

You already admitted that many Protestants don’t submit to the Augsburg Confession. And Catholics certainly don’t. So, why bring it up, again?

Again, I never said they did. I offered it as the Lutheran understanding. Methodists have theirs. Baptists theirs, Anglicans theirs, etc.
there is, however, no Protestant teaching on baptism because there is no such communion.

 

[Wannano]

De_Maria:

HopkinsReb:

I think what we’re seeing here is some Catholics’ being so excited to argue against a Lutheran that they forget themselves and argue against your defense of the Catholic position.

A funny situation, to be sure.

I’ve never known JonNC to defend any Catholic Doctrine. Please point out the one you think he’s defending now.

Baptismal regeneration and infant baptism.

From the Augsburg Confession:

Article IX: Of Baptism.
[1]](http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article9.1) Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2)to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.
3)They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

From the Confutation:

To Article IX.
The ninth article, concerning Baptism - viz. that it is necessary to salvation, and that children ought to be baptized - is approved and accepted, and they are right in condemning the Anabaptists, a most seditious class of men that ought to be banished far from the boundaries of the Roman Empire in order that illustrious Germany may not suffer again such a destructive and sanguinary commotion as she experienced five years ago in the slaughter of so many thousands.

If I did not know that the Lutheran Church has publically apologized for the hateful ways they were involved in treating the Anabaptists in those times I would find it hard to believe in the validity of the Lutheran faith at all.

I would suggest that when presenting hateful material from the past it is a sin to allow anyone in the present to assume the Lutheran Church still holds this attitude.