Baptism method and meaning across denominations

[Salty]

If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.

Those who break the Commandments will loose their salvation.

Those who don’t love God and love their neighbour as themselves aren’t regenerated new people in Christ. They are still the old man

The fruit of regeneration is first of all Love, and a great ecosystem of Love forms around those regenerated in Christ Jesus.

Because Love is Eternal, it’s effects go out from the regenerated in time and then into Eternity.

You have got to have both Faith and Love, Love is the greater of the two.

So are you saying a Catholic does not need to be baptized to go to heaven?

 

[Cathode]

Believers have been saying the Lord’s Prayer for 2000 years. It asks the Father to forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.

If we do not forgive others, the Father can not forgive us.

Many think that they can hold a grudge and believe they are in good standing with the Lord.

Not so.

If we hold to our trifling grudges, it mocks the Cross where we were forgiven a very great weight indeed.

Such is the Fathers reckoning on the matter. ‘ I forgave you all your sins with my only sons blood, and you can’t forgive your brother stealing your motorbike ‘.

Don’t mock the Cross by unforgiveness, The Father doesn’t like it all.

 

[Cathode]

So are you saying a Catholic does not need to be baptized to go to heaven?

Baptism is one of Jesus Commandments at the Great Commission, we can’t just ignore that. He wouldn’t command it if it wasn’t important.

I think Jesus Commandments have the same force as the 10 Ten Commandments, so it’s one of the works we have to do.

 

[Cathode]

Where Love is God is. Where the aroma of grilling steak and onions is, BBQ is.

That’s how we can tell.

If we do not Love, we are alien to the Father. Love is how we recognise Our Father, and how The Father recognises us. When the Father sees Love, He sees Jesus His Son.

We can have Faith to move mountains, but if we do not have Love, we nothing.

We must feed our hungry neighbour, visit him when he is sick or in prison, clothe him if he is naked, this is Love.

We can not say we Love God if we hate or are indifferent to our neighbour.

 

[unprofitable]

Re; comments by cathode

You ask why the Baptists consider the mode of baptism important considering that it, in your opinion, it is a superfluous point,

If it is so unimportant, why did the vatican congregation for doctrine and faith just declare the "baptism" of THOUSANDS of the congregation at Phoenix invalid because the priest used the word "we baptize" instead of "I baptize", contrary to your accepted tradition. See Newsweek article, "Priest resigns after two decades of performing 'Invalid' baptisms."

How many of those people have died and gone to hell since you believe they must have your baptism. But that is not a problem for catholicism, since you do not believe in sola scripture and accept the unwritten traditions of your priests. There is no way to nail down a doctrine because we can be sure there is some assumption (sprinkling, prayer for the dead) that will cover the bases.

If the method of baptism is not important, why were hundreds of thousands of Baptists and their predecessors exiled or slaughtered by the catholic assembly, because they refused to sprinkle their babies. I am sure you can find evidence of this in secular and catholic history.

We KNOW babies were not sprinkled. See comment #42.

An infant cannot be a witness, a necessity, (Isa 43:10) since it cannot comprehend the doctrines of righteousness nor discern the person of Christ/the Father to do so. John 6:45 says, "It is written in the prophets, And they ALL shall be taught of God. Every man that hath therefore heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." This is not possible for and infant. The belief that this can be accomplished by the guardian is also "invalid" since Jn 1:13 says, "which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, (NOR OF THE PARENTS) but of God."

 

[Cathode]

Re; comments by cathode

You ask why the Baptists consider the mode of baptism important considering that it, in your opinion, it is a superfluous point,

If it is so unimportant, why did the vatican congregation for doctrine and faith just declare the "baptism" of THOUSANDS of the congregation at Phoenix invalid because the priest used the word "we baptize" instead of "I baptize", contrary to your accepted tradition. See Newsweek article, "Priest resigns after two decades of performing 'Invalid' baptisms."

How many of those people have died and gone to hell since you believe they must have your baptism. But that is not a problem for catholicism, since you do not believe in sola scripture and accept the unwritten traditions of your priests. There is no way to nail down a doctrine because we can be sure there is some assumption (sprinkling, prayer for the dead) that will cover the bases.

If the method of baptism is not important, why were hundreds of thousands of Baptists and their predecessors exiled or slaughtered by the catholic assembly, because they refused to sprinkle their babies. I am sure you can find evidence of this in secular and catholic history.

We KNOW babies were not sprinkled. See comment #42.

An infant cannot be a witness, a necessity, (Isa 43:10) since it cannot comprehend the doctrines of righteousness nor discern the person of Christ/the Father to do so. John 6:45 says, "It is written in the prophets, And they ALL shall be taught of God. Every man that hath therefore heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." This is not possible for and infant. The belief that this can be accomplished by the guardian is also "invalid" since Jn 1:13 says, "which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, (NOR OF THE PARENTS) but of God."

Well the war between the Lilliputians was over which end of the hard boiled egg should be opened, the pointed or the fat end.
A satire on the human condition and how small we are at times.

There are things that are far more important regarding Baptism, the words used are central in the whole exercise and purpose. Whether the water is poured, sprinkled, or immersion takes place, whether it’s salt water or fresh, hot or cold is superficial.
Water is being used.

Regarding infants. Infants were not denied circumcision and inclusion in the people of God because they were unable to profess belief in God. The Covenant was not denied them because they were below the age of reason. In fact God was angry that infants were denied Covenant with Him, when Israel didn’t circumcise its infants.

The idea of denying infants baptism is a new and man made tradition, Christianity always baptised infants.

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“Therefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

Origen, a highly educated scholar of his day, points to infant baptism as being handed down from Apostolic times.
It was an unquestioned practice across all the ancient Churches, even up to the reformation.
Even the “reformers “ practiced infant baptism. Luther for instance.

The other thing is Baptism was always considered Salvific.

The overwhelming historic majority of Christianity and the majority of Christianity today baptises infants and sees baptism as salvific.

 

[Cathode]

Anyway the thing that costs believers their salvation is unforgiveness. We are forgiven our sin in proportion to our forgiveness of others.

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. The Lord wanted to remind us of this daily in His Prayer.

Pharaoh kept hardening his heart, till one day God hardened Pharoahs heart. Pharaoh was locked into a hardened heart.

So don’t hold grudges dudes or long resentments, settle matters between you and remember your own sins so that you can live together in peace in the grace of Christ Jesus.

This spiritual affliction is a most terrible one, believing dudes get around their whole lives not knowing how bad it is.
Hatred and resentment is incompatible with Heaven, Heaven is pure Love, our whole preparation here on earth is so we can enter that Love and be that Love.

Have you forgiven?

Do you repeatedly raise past hurts, accusations and wrongs of others from long ago, examine yourselves brothers and settle these things. Forgiving is forgetting, that’s how the Lord does it.

“And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.”

At judgment you will remember more sins than God does, you will recall sins that you asked for forgiveness for and God won’t know what you are talking about. He won’t remember them, he tells us that straight up.

 

[ntchristian]

Well the war between the Lilliputians was over which end of the hard boiled egg should be opened, the pointed or the fat end.
A satire on the human condition and how small we are at times.

There are things that are far more important regarding Baptism, the words used are central in the whole exercise and purpose. Whether the water is poured, sprinkled, or immersion takes place, whether it’s salt water or fresh, hot or cold is superficial.
Water is being used.

Regarding infants. Infants were not denied circumcision and inclusion in the people of God because they were unable to profess belief in God. The Covenant was not denied them because they were below the age of reason. In fact God was angry that infants were denied Covenant with Him, when Israel didn’t circumcise its infants.

The idea of denying infants baptism is a new and man made tradition, Christianity always baptised infants.

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“Therefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

Origen, a highly educated scholar of his day, points to infant baptism as being handed down from Apostolic times.
It was an unquestioned practice across all the ancient Churches, even up to the reformation.
Even the “reformers “ practiced infant baptism. Luther for instance.

The other thing is Baptism was always considered Salvific.

The overwhelming historic majority of Christianity and the majority of Christianity today baptises infants and sees baptism as salvific.

The truth is just the opposite of what you posted (that I highlighted in bold). The problem with your quotes is that they all come from the third century, not the NT or early thereafter. In the NT, the prerequisite for baptism was always belief. Even the Didache suggests that, also. Infant baptism was a "tradition of men", developed because of a false belief about original sin, and baptismal regeneration.

 

[Cathode]

The truth is just the opposite of what you posted (that I highlighted in bold). The problem with your quotes is that they all come from the third century, not the NT or early thereafter. In the NT, the prerequisite for baptism was always belief. Even the Didache suggests that, also. Infant baptism was a "tradition of men", developed because of a false belief about original sin, and baptismal regeneration.

So why is Origen saying that Church received the tradition of infant baptism from the Apostles in 244 AD. And the Church baptising infants in his day.
If Origen was a heretic on infant baptism, why was there no great controversy over it. There was no great split with two sides forming on the issue.
The Church always baptised infants.
Why was infant baptism practiced universally across all the ancient Churches.

Sure Faith is required. But whose faith. Was it Lazarus’s Faith that raised him from the dead?
Was it the Roman soldiers daughters faith that cured her. No, it was the faith of the Roman soldier.
Was it the faith of the paralytic that cured him. No, it was the faith of those that delivered him to Jesus.

In these cases it was the faith of another that answered for them.

And so with baptism.

 

[Campion]

"This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever." - Martin Luther, Large Catechism

Baptism is the normative means by which God brings people to newness of life (Romans 6:4). It means the old life and person has died in baptism and is made new, born again (John 3:5). This belief is based on all the baptism texts of Scripture, which say baptism "forgives sins" (Acts 2:38), "washes sin away" (Acts 22:16), "regenerates" (Titus 3:4-7), "buries, unites us to Christ, and frees us from sin" (Romans 6:1-10), was typified in the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) and yes, "saves" us (1 Peter 3:21).

If you don't even believe baptism actually does that which Scripture says it does (above), then arguing about the volume of water used like whether to immerse or sprinkle someone is entirely moot.

 

[Salty]

Points have been made

Thread is closed

Do not start a new thread on this