Catholicism, Baptist and Baptism

"interestingly enough is that the Catholic Church accepts baptism in accordance of scripture from any denomination."
"
That's a recent development, prior to Vaticanum II you had to go through Roman Catholic (re-)baptism to become a member.

 

Jesus also commands His disciples to baptize at the end of Matthew's Gospel (28:19)


mioque... to which document are you referring to? In my studies of that Catholic Council I have not come across such a change. Are you perhaps referring to this document ? If so, I think you may be reading it wrong. In the earliest of Catholic Councils they even affirmed that the baptism of heretics, so long as it was done with an intent to baptize and in the Trinitarian formula, was valid.

(yay, look, I did learn something in my Christian history class!)

 

Yes.

Hopefully- and this is the more important distinction, these people were denied baptism and membership until they made a credible profession of faith.

Also, baptism was symbolic of repentance and the renouncing of former beliefs in the early church. That is primarily what it was very prominent.

One must be baptized to join a Baptist church but neither the baptism nor the joining of a Baptist church have anything to do with whether they have been saved.

 

Hi Scott J
According to scripture, what are the bases of a credible profession of faith? </font>[/QUOTE] Acts tells us that people heard the Apostles' preaching, believed, then were baptized and added to the church.

It is difficult to say whether the testimonies of belief were verbal or not... but they were consummated in the testimony of being baptized publicly. Baptism told the world they were followers of Christ... which wasn't a particularly popular or safe thing to do at the time.

It seems almost certain that even some of the early professions and baptisms were false.

Yes. But they have to do so willingly which is vastly superior to the baptism of children.

Also, this argument would equally apply to the CoC since a person can accept baptism insincerely.

The testimony would be a verbal acknowledgement of a change within.

 

Not trying to step on anyone's feet but... a credible confession of faith would include a repentant attitude toward sin... at the very least undeniably sinful behavior.

I am not saying that all genuinely converted people will cease all sins or that it might not take years to overcome some sins. But a person will agree that sin is sin and needs to be overcome. I would doubt the profession of someone who continued to rationalize their lying or sexual deviancy or stealing or cheating.... though a genuinely converted person might struggle and sometimes fail on any of these things.

 

#1. You are right that "obedience" is the walk of faith and "rebellion" is not.

#2. You are right in saying that the very act of submitting to Baptism is a work - is a fruit of the new birth - is the choice for "obedience".

I would not equate membership at a church with the "moment of salvation" even though it is assoicated with Baptism and the "moment of membership".

In John 14 precross Christ said "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments". In Rev 12 John (the same author as in John 14) says the saints are those who "Keep God's Commandemnts" and the same point is brought out in 1John 1 and 2.

God is calling for "obedience" not "rebellion". (As much as that comes as a surprise to some)

In Christ,

Bob

 

If one were on a deserted island he/she could certainly believe Christ and be saved without baptism or a PUBLIC profession of faith. The point seems moot since no one is going to refuse to be baptised.

It does bring up an interesting point.

I have always wondered how the earliest church addressed the idea of children born into already Christian families. The NT books bear witness to a time when the Gospel was being proclaimed actively. Adults were being converted in adulthood. Children were being converted along with adults.

Today's church makes a distinction regarding a point in life where a child is able to understand and then can make a decision of faith him/herself. The RCC does it differently obviously with "blanket" infant baptising. I have always wondered hop Paul would have handled the situation of the child being brought up in a Christian home.

I was raised catholic and was "paedobaptised". I went to catholic school and recieved first communion and confirmation. All along I was taught that Jesus was the way. But I was never told that I had to take a step out at some point and accept Christ as savior personally. Later in life I became agnostic (largely due to study in the sciences).

Today I cannot help but think that my faith is better than it ever could have been as a catholic since I made a personal attempt to know Jesus and commit my life to Him.

Any thoughts????

 

Baptism has no saving merit or else the Lord had need of salvation.

Baptism is the public identification with Christ and the body of faith and practice of a particular assembled group of believers.

It is improper, non-scriptural when the baptism is not unto the proper mode, subject, or toward the correct scriptural doctrine that was once delivered to the saints.

For this reasons Baptists have historically required any coming to them from other groups be 'baptized'. Though these groups recognized this as a 'rebaptism' it is not because the previous baptism, be it viewed as an act that brought one into obedience and thereby a washing (either regeneration or remission of sin) thus the baptism is non scriptural and invalid.

The individual under the wrong baptism has never been baptized and are in need of it.

As Brother Charles points out, this will never interrupt an eternal hope that has been born into the individual prior to submission to baptism.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Then Wesley still makes baptism a work unto salvation.

Where does the Bible speak of 'prevenient' grace?

Bro. Dallas

 

Catholics believe that baptism is a sacrament--a means of grace whereby one is saved. If one asks a Catholic if they have been born again, they may reply in the affirmative. To a Catholic baptism is being born again.

To a Baptist baptism is not a sacrament, but an ordinance. An ordinance is a command just as it is in a city (city ordinance). It is something to be done and remembered. It has no salvic power; no grace that is merited. Merited grace is an oxymoron, for grace cannot be merited, otherwise it would not be grace (Rom.11:6).

To be a member of a Baptist church (like ours) one has to be saved, baptized, and then they must agree to the constitution. In other words we must be one in doctrine and faith. The church must be united. It is not good enough just to be saved and baptized. One must be in agreement with the doctrinal position and purpose of the church.
DHK

 

The Bible records that Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15).

Jesus was also circumcised and presented in the temple at the appropriate times... both were acts of purification under the Old Covenant, yet we know that Jesus was perfect and in no need of purification. Will you also argue that circumcision and the presentation of infants in the Old Covenant had no merit? (For I would think the Old Testament would testify differently)

I once read that Jesus entered into events that we partake in to fulfill them (as with events of the Old Covenant) and also that precisely through those events we might receive grace. That is to say, for us Christians, baptism is efficacious precisely because Christ entered into baptism Himself, that through it we might be reborn in His grace (Yes, I see baptism as being "born again"-- cf. John 3:5 & Romans 6:4-6). That seems to make the most sense to me.

 

I don't have to argue it, Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit already proves it to be truth.

Here is another that teaches truth about Christ's submission to the Law:

And as for Christ's fullfilling all righteousness, you are correct; He stands as the federal head for all who were neither circumcised (under the Old Covenant) and likewise all who are never baptizied (under the New Covenant) and in so doing He is the end of the law for righteousness (Rom. 10:4)

And came for that expressed purpose (matt. 5:17).

May God Bless,
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Hi Brother riverm,
I understand the idea is thought to be there, where is it thought to be supported?

Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman--

Were you addressing my post? (sorry, I just got off work, so my brain isn't entirely "all here" quite yet)

Paul speaks of faith and justification in Romans... I'm not sure how my previous post somehow denied faith?

 

Dear jesusrocks,
Sorry for not directing my previous statement to your previous post. Yes, it was a reply to your previous post.

Faith was reckoned in Abram's 'ucircumcised' flesh.

Christ came to fulfill the law, therefore he was subject to the law, therefore he was circumcised.

Christ fulfilled all righteousness and stands as the fed. head of all His redeemed, thus His 'circumcision' according to the Old Covenant and His 'baptism' according to the new.

The scriptures I provide above are clear and have no need of argumentative proof or logic from myself.
Bro. Dallas