Baptism Rome vs Protestant

[Christforums]

Right here in this forum on the topic of Sola Scriptura I note the Catholic position that the church is the sole interpreter of Scripture. Likewise, I questioned whether Catholics believe some power conferred by the priest is transferred in the sacrament of baptism. Regardless of whether the outward appearance of Romans appear to baptize babies (paedo) there's a difference between baptismal regeneration and covenant baptism. I tried not to dive into rebaptizing or the mode of baptism but wanted to address what those Protestants believe in Covenant Baptism:

Does it matter who is doing the baptizing? - The school of Isaiah

Does it matter who is baptizing? Some believe it does matter who baptizes. While others believe it does not matter. Let's examine two verses which might help answer this question:John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them...

isaiah.school

Contrary to what Rome believes in baptismal regeneration, that is, the moment the baptismal waters touch an infant the infant is regenerated. Reformed believe WCF: V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Baptism is the sign, seal, and mark of the new covenant, and not dependent upon the works of man. I also tried to address some of the questions, whether or not who does the baptism and whether it matters. Of course, who is not only an individual but can also be denominational (universal catholic).

However, despite the difference in theology between Rome and Protestants it is clear that both do not believe in rebaptism or communicating doubt in a once in a lifetime sacrament rather than faith.

I also use the term Reformed, to communicate historical Reformers in the context of protesting the Roman Catholic church and not the Church of England (Baptist). Perhaps, the historical context is why Reformed call Baptist which adhere to apostolic doctrine as particular rather than Reformed.

 

[Piper 2]

You ramble too much in disconnected words.

 

[Christforums]

You ramble too much in disconnected words.

Whatever that means.

 

[Piper 2]

This is a non-sensical garble of words.

"Perhaps, the historical context is why Reformed call Baptist which adhere to apostolic doctrine as particular rather than Reformed."

 

[Christforums]

This is a non-sensical garble of words.

"Perhaps, the historical context is why Reformed call Baptist which adhere to apostolic doctrine as particular rather than Reformed."

Don't blame me for your lack comprehension.

In context, "I also use the term Reformed, to communicate historical Reformers in the context of protesting the Roman Catholic church and not the Church of England (Baptist). Perhaps, the historical context is why Reformed call Baptist which adhere to apostolic doctrine as particular rather than Reformed."

There are reformers in politics, and they want reformed politics. In religious context they haven't anything to do with the Protestant Reformation.

Stating Particular Baptists adhere to apostolic doctrine is simply stating Particular Baptist align with Reformation theology namely John Calvin. There's a distinction between the historical Protestant Reformation of the Roman Catholic church and the Church of England. Reformed Protestants and Baptist disagree on many issues mainly the topic of baptism. In that sense, Baptist can be hardly said to have progressed apostolic doctrine or Reformation theology.

What are Particular Baptist churches, and what do Particular Baptists believe? | GotQuestions.org

What are Particular Baptist churches, and what do Particular Baptists believe? What are the differences between Particular and Regular Baptists?

www.gotquestions.org

I mentioned elsewhere and will too here, Charles Spurgeon called himself a Particular Baptist and as far as I am aware he coined the term.

 

[Walter]

Don't blame me for your lack comprehension.

In context, "I also use the term Reformed, to communicate historical Reformers in the context of protesting the Roman Catholic church and not the Church of England (Baptist). Perhaps, the historical context is why Reformed call Baptist which adhere to apostolic doctrine as particular rather than Reformed."

There are reformers in politics, and they want reformed politics. In religious context they haven't anything to do with the Protestant Reformation.

Stating Particular Baptists adhere to apostolic doctrine is simply stating Particular Baptist align with Reformation theology namely John Calvin. There's a distinction between the historical Protestant Reformation of the Roman Catholic church and the Church of England. Reformed Protestants and Baptist disagree on many issues mainly the topic of baptism. In that sense, Baptist can be hardly said to have progressed apostolic doctrine or Reformation theology.

What are Particular Baptist churches, and what do Particular Baptists believe? | GotQuestions.org

What are Particular Baptist churches, and what do Particular Baptists believe? What are the differences between Particular and Regular Baptists?

www.gotquestions.org

I mentioned elsewhere and will too here, Charles Spurgeon called himself a Particular Baptist and as far as I am aware he coined the term.

The Church of England is NOT Baptist. The Church of England is Anglican.

And, your first post IS a 'garbled mess'.

 

[JesusFan]

Right here in this forum on the topic of Sola Scriptura I note the Catholic position that the church is the sole interpreter of Scripture. Likewise, I questioned whether Catholics believe some power conferred by the priest is transferred in the sacrament of baptism. Regardless of whether the outward appearance of Romans appear to baptize babies (paedo) there's a difference between baptismal regeneration and covenant baptism. I tried not to dive into rebaptizing or the mode of baptism but wanted to address what those Protestants believe in Covenant Baptism:

Does it matter who is doing the baptizing? - The school of Isaiah

Does it matter who is baptizing? Some believe it does matter who baptizes. While others believe it does not matter. Let's examine two verses which might help answer this question:John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them...

isaiah.school

Contrary to what Rome believes in baptismal regeneration, that is, the moment the baptismal waters touch an infant the infant is regenerated. Reformed believe WCF: V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Baptism is the sign, seal, and mark of the new covenant, and not dependent upon the works of man. I also tried to address some of the questions, whether or not who does the baptism and whether it matters. Of course, who is not only an individual but can also be denominational (universal catholic).

However, despite the difference in theology between Rome and Protestants it is clear that both do not believe in rebaptism or communicating doubt in a once in a lifetime sacrament rather than faith.

I also use the term Reformed, to communicate historical Reformers in the context of protesting the Roman Catholic church and not the Church of England (Baptist). Perhaps, the historical context is why Reformed call Baptist which adhere to apostolic doctrine as particular rather than Reformed.

Are you stating here that the Catholic view of what water baptism does to one once partaking of it is not a scriptural view?

 

[David Lamb]

Don't blame me for your lack comprehension.

In context, "I also use the term Reformed, to communicate historical Reformers in the context of protesting the Roman Catholic church and not the Church of England (Baptist). Perhaps, the historical context is why Reformed call Baptist which adhere to apostolic doctrine as particular rather than Reformed."

I am puzzled by, "and not the Church of England (Baptist)". The Church of England and the Baptists are different. The Church of England practices infant baptism. Baptists hold to believers' baptism.

 

[Christforums]

I am puzzled by, "and not the Church of England (Baptist)". The Church of England and the Baptists are different. The Church of England practices infant baptism. Baptists hold to believers' baptism.

In other words the Church of England and whatever protests against it are not historically considered the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Christforums]

The Church of England is NOT Baptist. The Church of England is Anglican.

And, your first post IS a 'garbled mess'.

Never claimed Baptist are Anglican. What I had attempted to convey was the Protestant Reformation historically hadn't anything to do with any controversy in the Church of England. I wanted to point that out in the context of the article I had written because many today and the information being published on the internet blur the lines between the historical Protestant Reformation and the Church of England and its controversies. Likewise, "Reformed Baptist" implies Baptists were part of the historical Protestant Reformation. As someone pointed out by the doctrines of the Baptist differ than the Reformers doctrines of the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Christforums]

Are you stating here that the Catholic view of what water baptism does to one once partaking of it is not a scriptural view?

Yes, most certainly. Catholics believe in Baptismal Regeneration and Reformed do not. For example, the WCF states:

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,a yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it,b or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.c

a. Luke 7:30 with Exod 4:24-26. • b. Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47; Rom 4:11. • c. Acts 8:13, 23.

 

[David Lamb]

In other words the Church of England and whatever protests against it are not historically considered the Protestant Reformation.

The Church of England isn't the Protestant Reformation. No denomination is the Protestant Reformation. But what has that got to do with what I asked to explain - what you meant by "The Church of England (Baptist)?

 

[David Lamb]

Likewise, "Reformed Baptist" implies Baptists were part of the historical Protestant Reformation. As someone pointed out by the doctrines of the Baptist differ than the Reformers doctrines of the Protestant Reformation.

Reformed Baptists are called that because they believe doctrines such as the 5 Great Alones of the Reformation, that salvation is made known through Scripture alone, is in Christ alone, through faith alone, by grace alone, and to God's glory alone.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The Church of England is NOT Baptist. The Church of England is Anglican.

And, your first post IS a 'garbled mess'.

Aren’t all Christian churches ‘really just garbled messes’ when you think about it? So when our brother here attempts to convey this, he gets accused of being incoherent. Where do we begin in history with church formation? From the earliest apostolic gatherings in rooms, hiding out from Roman soldiers to the formation of the RCC to Orthodox churches yada yada… who uses the sign of the cross & what is the correct way of signing oneself? Then just what’s baptism on the critical importance scale ….blah blah blah. At my advanced age and having been a Child of God for some 68 years, I still want to know why Jesus freaked out in the temple when he saw money changers…why? So we accuse a brother of a garbled mess when all these christian practices and delineations are to me anyway, the real garbled mess. Please, bring clarity to it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, most certainly. Catholics believe in Baptismal Regeneration and Reformed do not. For example, the WCF states:

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,a yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it,b or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.c

a. Luke 7:30 with Exod 4:24-26. • b. Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47; Rom 4:11. • c. Acts 8:13, 23.

Why are you quoting the Westminster Confessions of Faith as a definitive?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you want a clue into Catholism, Baptism was in fact an exorcism

 

[atpollard]

The Church of England isn't the Protestant Reformation. No denomination is the Protestant Reformation. But what has that got to do with what I asked to explain - what you meant by "The Church of England (Baptist)?

I am 99% sure that “The Church of England (Baptist)” was meant to convey that Baptists (as a movement) was an attempt to reform the Church of England and centered on a different argument than the earlier Reformation of men like Luther and Calvin who were attempting to reform the Roman Catholic Church and had disagreements that centered on different arguments than the Anglican-Baptist divide.

He is making a distinction between the earlier “reformation” of Catholic-Protestant and the later “reformation” of Anglican-Baptist. The Catholic-Protestant argument was about the need for HIERARCHY and MAGIC in BAPTISM and SACRAMENTS. The Anglican-Baptist argument is over CREDO vs PAEDO Baptism and the need for PRIESTS. The first is a fight over the definition of “saved” and the second is a fight over the definition of “church”.

 

[atpollard]

Why are you quoting the Westminster Confessions of Faith as a definitive?

He is “Presbyterian“ (or one of the early “reformed” denominations) and follows the WCF as baptists adhere to the London Confession as a clear statement defining what Particular Baptists believe.

 

[David Lamb]

I am 99% sure that “The Church of England (Baptist)” was meant to convey that Baptists (as a movement) was an attempt to reform the Church of England and centered on a different argument than the earlier Reformation of men like Luther and Calvin who were attempting to reform the Roman Catholic Church and had disagreements that centered on different arguments than the Anglican-Baptist divide.

He is making a distinction between the earlier “reformation” of Catholic-Protestant and the later “reformation” of Anglican-Baptist. The Catholic-Protestant argument was about the need for HIERARCHY and MAGIC in BAPTISM and SACRAMENTS. The Anglican-Baptist argument is over CREDO vs PAEDO Baptism and the need for PRIESTS. The first is a fight over the definition of “saved” and the second is a fight over the definition of “church”.

Well, if that is the case, thanks for explaining. However, writing "The Church of England (Baptist)” seems a most unusual way of saying that Baptists were making an attempt to reform the Church of England.

 

[atpollard]

Well, if that is the case, thanks for explaining. However, writing "The Church of England (Baptist)” seems a most unusual way of saying that Baptists were making an attempt to reform the Church of England.

What can you expect from people that think they are in a Family Covenant (like the Jews), baptism=circumcision, and whole families join the church at once (including infants)?

Presbyterians … we just have to be patient with them, they still have all this baggage from ROME that they just can’t let go of.