Submerged Baptsm

[johnshelby]

RyanL:

C-WAB,
What you have said expressly contradicts scripture. Please read the following: Baptism now saves you.

God Bless,
RyanL

CCC 1260
"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

[RyanL]

johnshelby,

I suppose I should have qualified it by saying that the “normative” position is that it is required.

CCC
**1257 **The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” *God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

• 1 Pet 3*:*21"…baptism doth also now save us…"

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Elzee]

ChristianWAB:

It has no impact whatsoever. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation. It’s meant to illustrate a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4).

As far as I’ve come to understand it, aside from being a public proclamation of an inward faith, submersion baptism is largely symbolic:

a.) Being immersed in the water represents being buried with Christ (see above-referenced scripture).

b.) The action of coming out of the water represents Christ’s resurrection.

I’m actually surprised that Catholics don’t do submersion themselves. I don’t see the harm in it from the Catholic perspective, but then again… I don’t make the rules.

Actually, I think many Catholics could agree that submersion more fully symbolizes what actually occurs at baptism through the Holy Spirit (Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21). I know some of the new Catholic churches are building baptistries that allow for submersion. Both methods have always been deemed valid by the Church, but I don’t know enough about Church history to know why pouring became more of the norm - unless the scarcity of pools of water (rivers, lakes, etc.) in some areas during the early Church years made it impractical.

 

[puzzleannie]

deb1:

I was told by my expastor that baptism was only a symbol and yet he insisted that I redo my baptism at his church. His reasoning was that my baptism at eight years old could not be valid. I had fallen away from God and redirected myself to Christ. In his OSAS mentality that meant that I was a brand new Christian and my old baptism didn’t count.Even though the first one was performed in a baptist church.
.

I would love to hear from someone who shares the views of this pastor an explanation of why, if baptism is only symbolic, it has to be done at all, or there is a standard by which its validity is judged. I would also like to understand how the first baptism, in a Baptist church, which presumably also preached OSAS, was invalid, since the person in question is already saved (which their baptism symbolizes). It seems like the preacher is making two contradictory statements.

I apologize for not being more precise in my answer, in using the word “sprinkling” I was referring to the derogatory way some fundamentalists refer to the practice of baptism by pouring usually used for infants. As a matter of fact, the preferred method for baptizing adults (those over the age of 7) at the Easter Vigil is by immersion. This is to emphasize the sign value so many of our Protestant brothers and sisters understand so well and that has been presented by several posters. But we believe of course that Baptism is an efficacious sign, bringing about through the action of Christ in the sacrament what the words and actions say and do.

 

[Brendan]

ChristianWAB:

It has no impact whatsoever. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation. It’s meant to illustrate a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4).

Mk 16:16

“He that believes AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that does not believe shall be condemmed”

What does the word ‘AND’ mean here? What happens when one of the conditions of an “AND” clause are not met?

 

[johnshelby]

RyanL:

johnshelby,

I suppose I should have qualified it by saying that the “normative” position is that it is required.

CCC
**1257 **The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” *God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

• 1 Pet 3*:*21"…baptism doth also now save us…"

God Bless,
RyanL

yes, it is required for us… not necessarily for everyone…
the one who judges the servant is the Master…

 

[ChristianWAB]

RyanL:

C-WAB,
What you have said expressly contradicts scripture. Please read the following: Baptism now saves you.

God Bless,
RyanL

What I said might contradict Roman Catholicism, but it doesn’t appear to contradict Holy Scripture. If you’ll permit me to expatiate…
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36

“He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life…” John 5:24

“He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” John 6:47

(Jesus repeats this message in John 3:16, 3:18, and 6:40)
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:9-10

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” John 1:12

“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” Acts 10:43

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth…” Romans 1:16

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” Acts 16:31

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23

“… God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” 1 John 4:9

“Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Romans 5:9

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:10, 12

Yet perhaps the most compelling Biblical proof that baptism isn’t necessary for salvation can be found in Luke 23:42-43. Jesus was on the cross and the thief who was on the cross next to Him cried out: “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Jesus responded by saying, *"*Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."
**
…and just to answer your reference to 1 Peter 3:21, the meaning changes when you read the context of Peter’s words. Start at 1 Peter 3:18 and go to 3:22. The water of baptism does no more to save us than the water of the flood did to save Noah. The Arc saved Noah… Jesus saved us.

For more help in understanding the meaning of 1 Peter 3:21, check out the following link:

carm.org/doctrine/1Pet_3_21.htm

It’s a Christian Apologetics site that you may find helpful. I wish you well and may God bless you.

 

[Brendan]

ChristianWAB:

Yet perhaps the most compelling Biblical proof that baptism isn’t necessary for salvation can be found in Luke 23:42-43. Jesus was on the cross and the thief who was on the cross next to Him cried out: “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Jesus responded by saying, *"*Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

You will note that the command to Baptize, and the Form to be used occured in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19)

That occured AFTER the cruxifiction. The thief on the Cross was saved under the Old Covenant, not the New, for it was by Both the Cross and the Resurrection that we are saved in the New Covenant, but the Resurrection had not yet occured for the thief.

From Matt 28 onward, Baptism was a requirement.

And I saw you comment on your interpertation of 1Peter, but I didn’t see any response to Mt 16:16.

Christ clearly puts two conditions on salvation ( Believe and Baptism), was He somehow mistaken?

 

[B_a_r_b]

deb1:

I think though that when most Protestants use the term sprinkling they are referring to pouring the water on the head.

It’s more like the pastor dips his or her hand into the font and touches the person’s head who is being baptized. Babies usually get more water on them because it’s easy to hold them over the font.

I remember being baptized, and I think I had a towel over my shoulders, but I don’t remember water being poured over me. My parents weren’t there and the pastor who did it is dead now. But I assumed it was a valid baptism in the eyes of the Catholic church because I remember there being a towel. Plus I looked up the denomination and that denomination doesn’t sprinkle. But now that I think about it more, it was a really small font, like half a gallon or something. Maybe I was sprinkled and didn’t remember right.

Is it a big deal? Should I talk to my priest? Frankly, I think he thinks I’m too concerned with doing stuff “right” and missing the big picture.

Thanks.

 

[bigdawg]

B a r b:

It’s more like the pastor dips his or her hand into the font and touches the person’s head who is being baptized. Babies usually get more water on them because it’s easy to hold them over the font.

I remember being baptized, and I think I had a towel over my shoulders, but I don’t remember water being poured over me. My parents weren’t there and the pastor who did it is dead now. But I assumed it was a valid baptism in the eyes of the Catholic church because I remember there being a towel. Plus I looked up the denomination and that denomination doesn’t sprinkle. But now that I think about it more, it was a really small font, like half a gallon or something. Maybe I was sprinkled and didn’t remember right.

Is it a big deal? Should I talk to my priest? Frankly, I think he thinks I’m too concerned with doing stuff “right” and missing the big picture.

Thanks.

If there is doubt you should be conditionally baptized. I believe the Church used to conditionally baptize all converts up until relatively recently.

 

[deb1]

ChristianWAB:

, 12

Yet perhaps the most compelling Biblical proof that baptism isn’t necessary for salvation can be found in Luke 23:42-43. Jesus was on the cross and the thief who was on the cross next to Him cried out: “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Jesus responded by saying, *"*Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."
**

I am in RCIA so if I am explaining this poorely, hopefully someone will respond and clarify.

There are two additional types of baptism: One of which is baptism of desire. This describes an implicit wish to receive Baptism, and salvation. If you die before you reach the church for water baptism but you fully wished to receive a baptism then you would be considered saved.(If I am wrong or wording this incorrectly please don’t hesitate to explain better)

The second is Baptism of blood: which is a marytr’s death. You as an unbaptized person die for your belief in Christ.

As Jesus was and is God, I would imagine that he isn’t bound by the rules that we are anyway. If he wishes to make an exception for the thief on the cross that doesn’t mean that we can neglect his very real teachings on baptism.

 

[johnshelby]

Brendan:

You will note that the command to Baptize, and the Form to be used occured in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19)

That occured AFTER the cruxifiction. The thief on the Cross was saved under the Old Covenant, not the New, for it was by Both the Cross and the Resurrection that we are saved in the New Covenant, but the Resurrection had not yet occured for the thief.

From Matt 28 onward, Baptism was a requirement.

And I saw you comment on your interpertation of 1Peter, but I didn’t see any response to Mt 16:16.

Christ clearly puts two conditions on salvation ( Believe and Baptism), was He somehow mistaken?

i realize that this is a funny argument for me to make, i am
Catholic, so i DO need baptism to be saved… but,
in Mark 16:16 believe and be baptised, does assure salvation,
but it doesn’t say that’s the only way to salvation, and it says
that those who DO NOT believe are condemed… not those who
are not baptised…

 

[Brendan]

johnshelby:

i realize that this is a funny argument for me to make, i am
Catholic, so i DO need baptism to be saved… but,
in Mark 16:16 believe and be baptised, does assure salvation,
but it doesn’t say that’s the only way to salvation, and it says
that those who DO NOT believe are condemed… not those who
are not baptised…

But it is a Baptism logical condition to salvation in MT.16:16.

If one was to take the route you suggeted, it would logically apply to ALL cases were Salvation is promised; that Christ only lists “Faith”, for example, as one possible route to Salvation, not the only one.

The Bible is a complementary collection.

We can take any of CWAB’s quotations, John 6:47, for example.“He that belies in me has everlasting life.” John 6:47

How does that compare to Mt 25?

If we have a person who believes (John 6:47) but fails another condidtion (visit the sick - Mt 25:43).

Here we have a promise of Everlasting Life for one condition, but a promise of Eternal Damnation for the other. If taken seperatly, it’s an apparent contradiction, one cannot be both Saved and Damned at the same time.

Since we know that God is the Author of all Revelation and God cannot contradict Himself, the only valid conclusion is a series of logical ‘ANDs’

We must have Faith (John 6:47), be Baptized (Mt 16:16) and perform Good Works ( Mt 25).

 

[ChristianWAB]

Brendan:

The thief on the Cross was saved under the Old Covenant, not the New, for it was by Both the Cross and the Resurrection that we are saved in the New Covenant, but the Resurrection had not yet occured for the thief… And I saw you comment on your interpertation of 1Peter, but I didn’t see any response to Mt 16:16.

Mt 16:16? Well, Matthew 16:16 is Simon Peter’s proclamation of Jesus being the Christ and the Son of the living God which is certainly true. I noticed Mark 16:16 has something more specific to baptism, so here’s the link to that one:

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Mark_16_16.htm

As for the thief being saved under the Old Covenant, I’m not sure if that is true because the Old Covenant would have required (among other things) that he go to the temple and shed the blood of an animal (i.e. goat, lamb) so that he could receive forgiveness for his sins (see Leviticus 4:35 and Leviticus 5:10). I hadn’t seen anything like that concerning the thief, but I did see the thief’s faith that Jesus would enter His kingdom.

 

[Brendan]

* I hadn’t seen anything like that concerning the thief, but I did* see the thief’s faith that Jesus would enter His kingdom.

Is it your premise that the New Covenant was instituted at some prior to Christ’s Death and Resurrection.

That the Death and Resurrection of our Lord was not formally necessary to Salvation under the New Covenant.

The Carm site was cute, but it still didn’t address the fundamental commandment.

But it contradicts Scripture

Let me show you why. I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief that saves, not belief and going to church.

Church attendance IS a requirement. God commanded us to “Keep Holy the Sabbath” a failure to adhere to the commandments is a rejection of God, and no amount of Faith with Save you. (Mt 5:19).If CARM is teaching that one might break the Commandments and still be saved, they are false teachers.

Christ specifically put conditions in Mk 16:16. Two cases that must match. To say otherwise is to believe that Christ was being superfluous.

To you really want to be in that position?

Your premise might have validity, if and only if, Christ said that it was Faith Alone that saved some one. But he did not ( I think we all know the 1 place where “Faith Alone” appears in the Bible"

Christ did mention that Faith saves you. That is true. In Mt 16:16 he mentions that Faith and Baptism save you. That is also True.

Mt 25 and James 2 show how Works save you. That is also true

I can say something similar about my car. My car needs gas to work properly. It needs oil to work properly. In needs antifreeze to work properly.

All of those are true.

But I cannot say “I need ONLY gas to work properly”. That would be false.

Similarly, Christ, or the Holy Spirit never said we need ONLY FAITH to be saved. To do so would have been falsehood, and God does not utter falsehood.

 

[RyanL]

Your link uses two basic arguments:

1. Belief is all that is required for salvation. Anything else is surplus.
2. Mark 16:9 and following is “unreliable”.

Answer:

1. Is belief all that is required for salvation? Don’t even the demons believe, and tremble? Are demons saved? Nope. So perhaps the underlying assumption with which the piece you gave us is faulty. Perhaps it’s not faith ALONE that saves (James 2:24). Perhaps it is the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26) that saves. Obedience implies action. Without that action, there is disobedience. If there is disobedience, the faith is of no avail. Perhaps this is why the scriptures would say in 2 Cor 5:

5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;6 And having in a readiness to revenge alldisobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

Your link makes the words of Christ to no effect. It says that Christ didn’t really mean what he said about Baptism. It says that putting “Baptism” in that verse is as superfluous as putting “breathes” in there. What does the Bible have to say about traditions of man that make the word of God to no effect?

1. This is what happens when you deny the authority of the Catholic Church to canonize scripture - you have to question EVERY BOOK being canonical. This is why Luther rejected James as an inspired work, for example. There is simply no reason to trust that the Bible is “as it should be” once you reject the authority of the Catholic Church. If you can’t trust the Bible, sola scriptura kinda’ goes down the drain…

Bottom line is that Christ commanded us to be baptized, and if we refuse to obey the commands of Christ God will avenge that disobedience. I, for one, do not want to be on the receiving side of God’s vengence. Additionally, Baptism is the means by which we are born again, and it is necessary for salvation. Your bit about the flood not saving Noah is cute, but it is not what the writer intended. Keep reading 1 Peter 3 - the rest of the verse says that it is Baptism that washes away our sins. Additionally, 1 Cor 10 clearly illustrates how the Jews were brought through the Red Sea to the promised land, and how that is fulfilled in Baptism bringing us into the promised kingdom. Unless the Red Sea is the type for Biblical Baptism, the whole story in a salvation context makes no sense. The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[cheddarsox]

deb1:

I have to agree with PuzzleAnnie, I don’t understand why it would matter so much to some Protestants how another person was baptised.

Maybe for the same reasons that it matters to Catholics how a person is absolved, confirmed, married, receives holy orders, and last rights! Because it is a sacrament, and in sacraments, sacramental form matters.

They see immersion as proper sacramental form.

Hope that helps you understand.

cheddar

 

[deb1]

cheddarsox:

Maybe for the same reasons that it matters to Catholics how a person is absolved, confirmed, married, receives holy orders, and last rights! Because it is a sacrament, and in sacraments, sacramental form matters.

They see immersion as proper sacramental form.

Hope that helps you understand.

cheddar

Perhaps some denominations view baptism as a sacrament but a lot don’t. In fact the most vocal critics of Catholic baptism do not see Baptism as anything but a symbol.

Most Catholics that I know do not argue about the validity of nonCatholic Christians marriage, confirmations etc. If you get married in a Baptist church, for example, Catholics view your marriage as valid. I am a convert and I am not having to redo my previous baptism.

 

[cheddarsox]

deb1:

Perhaps some denominations view baptism as a sacrament but a lot don’t. In fact the most vocal critics of Catholic baptism do not see Baptism as anything but a symbol.

Most Catholics that I know do not argue about the validity of nonCatholic Christians marriage, confirmations etc. If you get married in a Baptist church, for example, Catholics view your marriage as valid. I am a convert and I am not having to redo my previous baptism.

When a person convert to Catholicism, even if they are already married, they need to get their marriage “validated” by the Church, or they are considered to be living in sin.

I have seen that situation come up many times on these forums.

so, if a person is entering a faith that only recognizes immersion as valid baptism, then it seems fair that they require converts to be “properly” baptised.

I am not arguing what the proper form is, only that they have as much right to require a certain form for their practices and rituals, as the Catholic church does.

I guess I can see how a Catholic, feeling that they have the whole truth, just disreguards what other faiths do as not really significant, but it is still significant to them. They believe they have the truth, and that such things DO matter, in the same way the Catholic church believes the form of rituals matters.

cheddar

 

[Brendan]

cheddarsox:

When a person convert to Catholicism, even if they are already married, they need to get their marriage “validated” by the Church, or they are considered to be living in sin.

cheddar

That is not true.

The only time a marriage needs to be convalidated is when one party is already Catholic, and they married outside the Church.

When one party is Catholic, they are bound by the Canonical Form of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, they are bound by the form either of civil law, or of their demonination.

If both parties are converting are baptized Protestants, then the marriage is already valid, and the Church does nothing additional.

The Church recognizes the Marriages of Protestants to be a Valid as our own.