What the New Testament doesn’t tell us…

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

Why? We agree that the positions exist. What does it add to the discussion to research and list all the churches that accept, for example, infant baptism and those which oppose it?

There clearly ARE at least five mutually opposing positions on the issue of baptism.

OK then, would you agree to saying now there are only five different interpretations among Protestant instead of 30,000? That would be a great start. Come on . . . it is Christmas.

I am just trying to stop the proliferation of the suggestion that there are 30,000 denominations and therefore 30,000 different opinions on all matters. Lets just say for the most part on each issue there are only two major positions. This is the reality, whether it is eternal security or baptismal regeneration.

Thanks for listening Vern and may God bless you and your family this Christmas.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

None of these say that the method of baptism is absolutely essential. You are going to have to do better than this. Check up on their beliefs. Not one will tell you that you MUST baptize using this method and that it is essential for salvation or orthodoxy. This is not to say they don’t disagree, but none of them think the method of baptism is essential like you have said earlier.

If you are going to say this about this, show me. Here is a web-site that has all their creeds. Go there and check:

spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds.htm

Actually, it’s quite limited.

I tried jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Baptism.shtml

And found the Latter Day Saints DO indeed have some real differences which they tie directly to salvation.

michaelp:
This was your origninal asssertation about the mode of baptism after I responded to the original post saying the mode was unimportant and non-essential:

“The larger point is that it IS essential to somebody–essential enough that their denomination may split over it. This is where Sola Scriptura/personal interpretation gets you. One side of the pew has one interpretation, the other side has another–if each believer is led by the Holy Spirit and Scripture is clear to all, how can things come to such a pass? Who’s to say whether the subject at hand is essential or not?”

The very fact that we have had a first-hand account of a church splitting over the issue of baptism – right here in this thread – seems to make the point.

michaelp:

Now, to tell you the truth I don’t know any denomination that does not agrere about this. Not one. So I guess I will say, all of them. I know of not one creed or confession that says “unless you are baptized this way you cannot be saved.” The burden is on you for suggesting such a thing.

May God bless you and thank you for your continued willingness to dialogue. It is very kind.

Michael

The Mormons certainly seem emphatic about it.

 

[RSiscoe]

There actually is an answer to this question. We can know for sure what form we are to use for Baptism. In fact, we can be just as sure of the proper form to be used for Baptism as we are sure that the Bible is inspired. In other words, we can have just as much certainty of the form of Baptism as we do that the Bible is inspired.

How? Simply by doing what Jesus taught - “hear the Church” (Mt 18:17). This leaves all the guess work out of it. Just as we all submit to the New Testament Canon that the Church gave us, so too can we submit to what the Church has taught us about the form of Baptism. And if someone does not accept what the Church teaches about the form of Baptism, why would they accept the Canon of the New Testament? The same authority that determined the Canon of the New Testament has told us that the form of Baptism is: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.

Like St. Augustine said: “Roma Locuta est, causa fanita est” (Rome has spoke, the case is closed).

So, as Christians, all we have to do is obey our Lord who told us to “hear the Church”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

OK then, would you agree to saying now there are only five different interpretations among Protestant instead of 30,000? That would be a great start. Come on . . . it is Christmas.

I don’t know how many there are – to find that out would be a major research project. But I do know there are some who consider the form of baptism to be serious enough to spilt away from their old church.

michaelp:

I am just trying to stop the proliferation of the suggestion that there are 30,000 denominations and therefore 30,000 different opinions on all matters. Lets just say for the most part on each issue there are only two major positions. This is the reality, whether it is eternal security or baptismal regeneration.

Thanks for listening Vern and may God bless you and your family this Christmas.

Michael

I would certainly agree that many Christian sects are in accord on baptism. Few converts to Catholicism who have been baptized need re-baptism.

But on the other hand, many sects were formed because someone was pole-vaulting over mouse droppings – things like the form of baptism, the method of administering communion, and so on.

 

[Fidelis]

ahimsaman72:

That’s fine. There are two things to point out.

First, you assert that immediately means “right now, at this moment in time”. You might be right. But, the odd thing would be that the author (Paul) would be clear when it was done - that it was immediate, but fails to tell how it was done, whether dunk, pour or sprinkle. I would think that when it was done is of no consequence or importance. On the other hand - how it is done would be of upmost importance. You see the reasoning here? The author is sure to tell us it was done immediately (so what?), but doesn’t find the issue of how it was done important.

Second, you interestingly speak of the Didache (outside of canon) and imply that sprinkling or pouring can be done out of necessity.
So, we could easily conclude that dunking is the norm and when *necessary *sprinkling or pouring (because of some odd condition) is acceptable. So, if you believe that sprinkling or pouring is okay *all the time *then you would be going against your own tradition. How odd.

a) Niether I (or the Catholic Church) believe that sprinkling or pouring is necessary. Catholics also can (and do) dunk. It is simply easier in most modern parishes to sprinkle or pour.

Your doctrine would then be based on 1) the assumption that “immediately” means “right now - no waiting any period of time” taken out of an entire Scriptural passage and 2) that your out of canon evidence explains that there is some variation on how it can be done - with sprinkling and pouring being done (when necessary). I would re-think your assumptions…

No need to re-think anything. I’m not even sure what doctrine you’re talking about. All that was asked was to provide Scritural references that implied baptism by sprinkling or pouring (Post # 7). And that’s what I did.

 

[Fidelis]

michaelp:

Thanks for the clarification. So no 5 either? I hope that you understand by point now. It is not as divided as everyone likes to say. I just don’t like the misrepresentation. It happens all the time.

Thanks for the update.

Michael

I’m not sure I’m following the fixation on presenting 5 different Protestant views on baptism. That isn’t my number, it’s yours. As I’ve said so many times before I’m losing count, I only mentioned the multitude of denominations that have arisen because of differing interpretations of Scriptures.

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

Actually, it’s quite limited.

I tried jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Baptism.shtml

And found the Latter Day Saints DO indeed have some real differences which they tie directly to salvation.

The very fact that we have had a first-hand account of a church splitting over the issue of baptism – right here in this thread – seems to make the point.

The Mormons certainly seem emphatic about it.

Mormons are not Protestant nor orthodox. Please, I have not equated you all with them, do not do so with us. Remember, just because someone is not Catholic, does not mean they are automatically Protestant, much less evangelical.

I truly hope that you all don’t start doing this.

Michael