• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Baptism Rome vs Protestant

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Pretty much can be directly proven and confirmed from NT books that the Apostles held to Believers Baptism, while Infant Baptism has to be either indirectly and very much due to incorrectly associating circumcision with water baptism directly
I agree, but HONESTY also demands that we recognize that Infant Baptism was potentially common by at least the end of the first or early second century and DOMINATED most of Church history. The Didache from this time does not specifically mention Infant Baptism but does allow alternatives to "immersion" that certainly facilitate baptizing infants. So the practice is not APOSTOLIC, but it is EARLY CHURCH (as with most things Christians get wrong).
 

Christforums

Active Member
I agree, but HONESTY also demands that we recognize that Infant Baptism was potentially common by at least the end of the first or early second century and DOMINATED most of Church history. The Didache from this time does not specifically mention Infant Baptism but does allow alternatives to "immersion" that certainly facilitate baptizing infants. So the practice is not APOSTOLIC, but it is EARLY CHURCH (as with most things Christians get wrong).
I haven't anything against baptizing believers, but I have many things against the baptism of Baptist only believers.

Ironically, the third paragraph of the Nicene Creed (universal catholic church) addresses (of the Holy Spirt).
 
Last edited:

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I haven't anything against baptizing believers, but I have many things against the baptism of Baptist only believers.

Ironically, the third paragraph of the Nicene Creed (universal catholic church) addresses (of the Holy Spirt).
I personally do not concentrate much upon baptism of any kind. As a Roman Catholic I was taught you had to be bapitised after birth ASAP so as not to die with Origional sin on the babies soul. It was a type of exorcism and then it was identified by RC Catechism as the 1st Sacrament…. So if it’s done properly then your hooked up properly. You become a member of that church family.

The Baptists also consider it an iniation rite, an outward sign testimony of an inward change involving getting immersed.

Personally I think the real weighted thing of importance is The Regeneration Experience…that’s when you know you’re a Child of God. The other stuff is just a ceremony.
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
It's very conservative and members are prone to feel that Christians who disagree with their doctrines are heretical

A friend of mine was refereeing a football game between a Missouri Synod Lutheran high school and a WELS high school. It was customary for the LCMS high school to pray with other Christian teams before games. Instead of the WELS team joining in the prayer they went to their own end zone and prayed. Later my friend asked the coach of the WELS team why and the coach told him that they didn't believe in syncretism.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Interesting analogy….you must have had experience with each group, probably searching for truth Im thinking. I personally measure each by my contentment factor for each ot those denominations. Where would I take each of my grandchildren to worship & hear His word preached. Recently, after visiting with a Orthodox Lutheran church in my community I was accosted by one of that churches Elders as being a heretic…I never knew I was, only that I’d given him an honest appraisal of my personal beliefs heavily slanted on the Baptist beliefs and how I understand it.

I next had a dialog with this churches bishop and explained to him why I could not join their church. He knew I was leaning toward a Baptistic theology mindset but indicated that through his Lutheran Bible studies that I would soon come around to their Bible interpretations thus abandoning Baptist beliefs. So I asked him, if the shoe was on the other foot could he take his family to a Baptist church for religious instructions and he answered he could not. So I asked him that then how could I as a believing Baptist abandon my beliefs and embrace his? Indeed, if these Lutheran church people insisted in identifying me as a heretic for my honest preference to the Baptist beliefs, I would be hard pressed to adapt to converting to Lutheran theology.

And there is the question about how important it is to have my grandchildren raised up in The Baptist faith and I’d conclude it’s critical…. Not LUTHERAN, not Presbyterian , not Catholic, Anglican,etc.
Catholic Russian/Greek Orthodox hold to another Gospel heresy of Sacramentalism Grace unto salvation, while Lutherans in this weird position of holding to real gospel , but also holding to a form of sacramentalism which leaves one confused and not sure of salvation
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
The Catholic Name was mentioned by the disciple of John, Ignatius of Antioch. Most scholars today on all sides say that the 7 letters of Ignatius are authentic.

This is all Catholic history anyway, and all the scriptures only come down to us through these Catholic sources.
The 66 canonical Inspired books were written and copied and used to teach from way before Roman catholic church even existed
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
The churches indeed preserved copies of the New Testament books from in the first century. The Catholic name wasn't until about the third century.
Rome really not what we know as Catholic church until papacy established in full centuries after Apostles died
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Well, you stand against the greatest majority of Protestant and Catholic scholars on this. The seven letters we quote are established as genuine, it’s the others that are ascribed to be forgeries.
You can’t face the consequences of Ignatius’ letters being true is the main problem.

Jesus founded His Church to be the pillar and foundation of the Truth, therefore it also stands with Authority.
If you believe the Scripture, you will believe this.
The true Church of Jesus is built upon him as Chief Cornerstone, is His body and Bride, and that Church is not Rome, but all redeemed by Him throughout history, regardless of their church labels on doorway
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I agree, but HONESTY also demands that we recognize that Infant Baptism was potentially common by at least the end of the first or early second century and DOMINATED most of Church history. The Didache from this time does not specifically mention Infant Baptism but does allow alternatives to "immersion" that certainly facilitate baptizing infants. So the practice is not APOSTOLIC, but it is EARLY CHURCH (as with most things Christians get wrong).
Think that the Practice of Believers Baptism can be directly affirmed from NT though, while infant has to be implied, and that is due to how one ties water abptism of NC and Circumcision of OT together

Do not see water Baptism as essential of the faith, as how one administers ot , in what mode, to me not nearly as important as to how one views what it is meant by being baptized
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Catholic Russian/Greek Orthodox hold to another Gospel heresy of Sacramentalism Grace unto salvation, while Lutherans in this weird position of holding to real gospel , but also holding to a form of sacramentalism which leaves one confused and not sure of salvation

Lutherans and Anglicans also believe in baptismal regeneration. What makes you think Lutherans 'hold to real gospel' if baptismal regeneration is your determining factor?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Lutherans and Anglicans also believe in baptismal regeneration. What makes you think Lutherans 'hold to real gospel' if baptismal regeneration is your determining factor?
No ONLY Rome holds to that, while Lutheran and Anglicans hold to something similar but not exactly same thing
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Catholic Russian/Greek Orthodox hold to another Gospel heresy of Sacramentalism Grace unto salvation, while Lutherans in this weird position of holding to real gospel , but also holding to a form of sacramentalism which leaves one confused and not sure of salvation
If that’s their “Religion” …it’s not true gospel, rather it’s some gospel plus Sacrimentalism, plus Sacred traditions and that’s why we as BAPTISTS can have nothing to do with them. Imagine you walk into a church group that prays to Icons as the Orthodox do. I came from all of that, the statues, the Novenas, the processions, exorcism, stations of the cross blah blah blah….thats essentially Religion. The local RC Church I was a member of in my youth and is a block away from my home. They just repaired the bell that was used years ago to call people to mass/ service , imagine that…so when I go out to feed my chicken I hear it ringing and I’m still drawn to it. The bell rings and I say, “Bring out Your Dead” ( remember Monty Python… LOL). And in doing that I remind myself to stay away, to reject it…reject the draw toward it.

And I’m not saying anything we don’t know, I don’t say it to attack these formal Religions, I love these people, they are mostly my family, my people who generaly adhere to Religion in order to worship. But I faithfully dream of a time in the future where we see a church that adheres to the Word of God because He is still communicating with His children. If that can be done in the Catholic Church, in the Lutheran church, in the Orthodox Church, the Presybterian Church, etc I’m content. Go to whatever Church that adheres to scriptures not church tradition.
 
Last edited:

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No ONLY Rome holds to that, while Lutheran and Anglicans hold to something similar but not exactly same thing

A simple Google search reveals that Lutheran and Anglican churches believe in baptismal regeneration

If similar but different, can you explain how?
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
It's very conservative and members are prone to feel that Christians who disagree with their doctrines are heretical

A friend of mine was refereeing a football game between a Missouri Synod Lutheran high school and a WELS high school. It was customary for the LCMS high school to pray with other Christian teams before games. Instead of the WELS team joining in the prayer they went to their own end zone and prayed. Later my friend asked the coach of the WELS team why and the coach told him that they didn't believe in syncretism.
Out of curiosity, do you consider WELS a works based religion?
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Out of curiosity, do you consider WELS a works based religion?

I don't. I see WELS as being firmly grounded in scripture in regards to the essentials of the Christian faith.

What I see as problematic is their reasoning for not being in pulpit and altar fellowship with other Lutheran synods of like faith and practice. Back in the 1930's the LCMS held meetings with the American Lutheran Church (now part of ELCA) and because they prayed with them the WELS broke communion with LCMS. As I mentioned in a previous post, WELS is hyper vigilant in not having any appearance of syncretism.

WELS is considered Confessional Lutheran theologically. They hold to strict adherence to the Book of Concord and smaller and larger catechism.

I will let the Lutheran posting here give his/her prospective on your question. I suppose if you believe that baptism and Holy Communion are works of man and not works of God then it could be considered a works based denomination.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The true Church of Jesus is built upon him as Chief Cornerstone, is His body and Bride, and that Church is not Rome, but all redeemed by Him throughout history, regardless of their church labels on doorway
As a child my mother consistently reinforced to me that the RCC was the one and only ‘True Church’…even then, as a child I would question that stance because to me it is arrogant. She did not mean it to be that, only to indoctrinate me to RC thinking and i can document to you many many experiences from Catholic Nuns, Priests and Catholic laymen teaching that Roman Catholicism is the ONLY TRUE RELIGION path to God…ie., brainwashing. Note that on her deathbed she recanted of that falsification.
 
Last edited:
Top