Difference in Baptism between Baptists and the RCC

[saturneptune]

The second ordinance we have in common is Baptism. Catholics baptise infants by sprinkling, and they are added to the family of God by the splash of water. The infant has no idea what sin is, who Jesus is, the Gospel, or the faintest idea he or she falls short of the glory of God.

Baptists model their baptism based on Scripture. Matthew 28:20 gives a clear picture of when to baptise. It is after salvation as a public profession of faith. The mode of baptism is immersion, based on how Jesus Christ was Baptised. Being immersed symbolized the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Catholics are not alone in this. Most mainline Protestant denominations also follow this error. In addition, some off the wall denominations like the Church of Christ immerse, but believe immersion is required for salvation, apart from what the Bible says.

So, especially to those who hold to infant baptism, what purpose does it serve? The infant knows as much about Scripture as my pet cat. If one does baptise an infant, does the infant receive salvation the moment the rain drops hit their face? If not, when do they obtain salvation in the Catholic Church? When they finish communicants class? If you do baptise infants, how do you square that with Matthew 28:20 to be baptised after salvation?

To those who believe baptism is required for salvation, and without splitting hairs with verses in 2 Peter, how do you explain the thief on the cross?

I will say one thing for sprinkling, it saves on the church water bill.

 

[Salty]

To those who believe baptism is required for salvation, and without splitting hairs with verses in 2 Peter, how do you explain the thief on the cross?

A COC minister said the thief obtained salvation under the old covenant, thus no need for Baptism (if I remember correctly)

 

[BobRyan]

The second ordinance we have in common is Baptism. Catholics baptise infants by sprinkling, and they are added to the family of God by the splash of water. The infant has no idea what sin is, who Jesus is, the Gospel, or the faintest idea he or she falls short of the glory of God.

Baptists model their baptism based on Scripture. Matthew 28:20 gives a clear picture of when to baptise. It is after salvation as a public profession of faith. The mode of baptism is immersion, based on how Jesus Christ was Baptised. Being immersed symbolized the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. bill.

That is true - but this is not just a difference between groups that accept the Bible teaching on believer's baptism - and the RCC it is also a difference with them and Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans etc. Most mainline Protestant Churches.

Still I do agree with you that all those groups are in error in rejecting the Bible teaching on believers baptism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[saturneptune]

That is true - but this is not just a difference between groups that accept the Bible teaching on believer's baptism - and the RCC it is also a difference with them and Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans etc. Most mainline Protestant Churches.

Still I do agree with you that all those groups are in error in rejecting the Bible teaching on believers baptism.

in Christ,

Bob

What do you think does more damage of these three, sprinkling for the mode, baptismal regeneration, or baptising infants?

IMO, the worst of these is baptising infants, followed closely by regenerational baptism. The mode is just a method of ceremony. Even as a Presbyterian, I never heard a good explanation for baptising infants other than a passage in the OT implies that covers an infants salvation until the age of accountability as some call it. There are two problems with this, one is an infant knows nothing of the Gospel or Christ, as in Matt 28, and we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Mom being saved, Dad being saved, the water, nothing can save one but Jesus Christ. What water does on a baby I will never understand. It is kind of like the Jews thinking being related to Abraham has some value.

Regenerational baptism is also an error, in that it adds to the Gospel. Correct me if I am wrong, but the RCC believes both, baptising infants and the requirement to be baptised to be saved.

IMO, the mode, although important, has no doctrinal error in it.

 

[BobRyan]

What do you think does more damage of these three, sprinkling for the mode, baptismal regeneration, or baptising infants?

Baptism of infants implies some sort of magical power in the water or in the priest and completely rejects the Bible concept of Baptism "an appeal to God for a clean conscience" 1Peter 3 on the part of the one being Baptized.

IMO, the worst of these is baptising infants

So then - agreed.

, followed closely by regenerational baptism.

While I agree that regenerational baptism is error - I am not sure it matters since what you or I think of it - does not change it. One may imagine that they are not born again until baptized - but that does not make it so - it does not stop God from causing the rebirth the real way.

IMO, the mode, although important, has no doctrinal error in it.

The mode has doctrinal error if not by Bible approved method of immersion because it wrecks the Romans 6 symbol of baptism - being buried with Christ and then raised to a new life of the new creation "old things passed away all things become new" 2Cor 5:10.

So it has doctrinal error to reject that Bible mode of Baptism but is not as disastrous as infant baptism in my view.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thomas Helwys]

What do you think does more damage of these three, sprinkling for the mode, baptismal regeneration, or baptising infants?

IMO, the worst of these is baptising infants, followed closely by regenerational baptism. The mode is just a method of ceremony. Even as a Presbyterian, I never heard a good explanation for baptising infants other than a passage in the OT implies that covers an infants salvation until the age of accountability as some call it. There are two problems with this, one is an infant knows nothing of the Gospel or Christ, as in Matt 28, and we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Mom being saved, Dad being saved, the water, nothing can save one but Jesus Christ. What water does on a baby I will never understand. It is kind of like the Jews thinking being related to Abraham has some value.

Regenerational baptism is also an error, in that it adds to the Gospel. Correct me if I am wrong, but the RCC believes both, baptising infants and the requirement to be baptised to be saved.

IMO, the mode, although important, has no doctrinal error in it.

I think baptismal regeneration by far does more damage. It makes people trust in a ritual for regeneration and gives them a false sense of security.

 

[Yeshua1]

What do you think does more damage of these three, sprinkling for the mode, baptismal regeneration, or baptising infants?

IMO, the worst of these is baptising infants, followed closely by regenerational baptism. The mode is just a method of ceremony. Even as a Presbyterian, I never heard a good explanation for baptising infants other than a passage in the OT implies that covers an infants salvation until the age of accountability as some call it. There are two problems with this, one is an infant knows nothing of the Gospel or Christ, as in Matt 28, and we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Mom being saved, Dad being saved, the water, nothing can save one but Jesus Christ. What water does on a baby I will never understand. It is kind of like the Jews thinking being related to Abraham has some value.

Regenerational baptism is also an error, in that it adds to the Gospel. Correct me if I am wrong, but the RCC believes both, baptising infants and the requirement to be baptised to be saved.

IMO, the mode, although important, has no doctrinal error in it.

The MOST damaging view of Baptism would be thatits sacramental in nature, that God has grace inherit in that rite, so the water itself in the act can make one regenerated!

Do presbys hold to the water regenerating the infants, orto it being a sign/witmess they are part of the elect body/church?