Baptism Rome vs Protestant

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

I’m assuming that they are not ecumenical…and probably not evangelical. What I shy away from is the WELS Bishops statement of how he would train me up to reject Baptist theology(which they view as heretical) in favor of The correct WELS beliefs and practices. Now I’m back to my mothers stressing RC ways are the correct ones, nothing else.

 

[atpollard]

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.

To be fair, the RCC doesn't always do the best job of teaching their beliefs to their members and the OFFICIAL CATECHISM answer is more subtle and nuanced than that. It has to do with great Catholic thinkers explanations of HOW Jesus saves His Church (body of believers). It is not 100% unrelated to the same line of thinking that leads to Reformed "Covenant" theology [in my opinion as an 'outsider looking in' to both views of soteriology].

 

[Walter]

I’m assuming that they are not ecumenical…and probably not evangelical. What I shy away from is the WELS Bishops statement of how he would train me up to reject Baptist theology(which they view as heretical) in favor of The correct WELS beliefs and practices. Now I’m back to my mothers stressing RC ways are the correct ones, nothing else.

Yes, I believe they are very dogmatic and your experience with them does not surprise me.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, I believe they are very dogmatic and your experience with them does not surprise me.

Ok thanks

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

To be fair, the RCC doesn't always do the best job of teaching their beliefs to their members and the OFFICIAL CATECHISM answer is more subtle and nuanced than that. It has to do with great Catholic thinkers explanations of HOW Jesus saves His Church (body of believers). It is not 100% unrelated to the same line of thinking that leads to Reformed "Covenant" theology [in my opinion as an 'outsider looking in' to both views of soteriology].

You have to live it to know. I really was not taught much of their great thinkers however… probably just the basics. Should have been warned about those pedofile priests in NJ however.

 

[atpollard]

You have to live it to know. I really was not taught much of their great thinkers however… probably just the basics. Should have been warned about those pedofile priests in NJ however.

My mother and Grandparents were Roman Catholic (Italian-American also from NJ), so I am not 100% unfamiliar even if I wasn't raised in the Catholic Church. I got to experience the CREEPY shrine to her dead brother and the candles to get him out of Purgatory.

I also went to the RCC and took "A Catechism for Inquirers" and had lots of questions for the priest. He was honest about the answers and I ultimately decided that I couldn't accept Tradition over the plain reading of scripture and would not affirm a belief that I did not hold. So the RCC and I parted amicably.

I know what you mean about the DEEP stuff of Catholicism ... you really have to search to find it. Like they want the congregation kept like "medieval peasants".

 

[Christforums]

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

Despite what Google AI says (it picks up on what others say) Lutherans do not believe in baptismal regeneration: The Sacrament of Holy Baptism

and: Holy Baptism

Note, the difference between Lutheran and Presbyterian (Reformed) Confessions of faith I must admit is how deeply expounded the confessions are. If not versed in theological terminology (defined by Scripture and not the RCC) certainly anybody will be lost in the Lutheran Confessions of faith. Whereas the Presbyterians WCF and Heidelberg seemingly go to great length expounding each point.

Let me define baptismal regeneration as regeneration soon as the baptismal drops of water touch anybody. The best way to understand the Reformed (theologically Apostolic strict Lutherans and Presbyterians) is through Covenant Baptism. Generally, Covenant Baptism contrasts or vs. Dispensationalism. Augustine early church father believed in monergism and that all are born in Adam; therefore, baptism was necessary for an infant to enter into heaven no matter the slight sin the infant was guilty. That is, the current position of the Roman Catholic church, but if you read the Lutheran theology, you'll probably pick up a quick distinction because the institution of the word, and justification are also mentioned for "salvation" and not by baptism alone. And, that stands in contrast to most Baptist which believe there is an age of reason or accountability, and infants all go to heaven and are innocent enough before G-d (that comment addressed some).

I am Lutheran belonging to the LBC and theologically Calvinist as well Covenant and see no discrepancies between the Lutherans and Presbyterians I do not see within each of their own bodies. In other words, it isn't uncommon to find a 1 point Arminian inside the Reformed Presbyterian church or 4-point Calvinist by what many others call them. I consider them Arminian because it is all 5 points or nothing (logical contradiction).

Here's a good reference if desiring to understand the Reformed position: Covenant Theology And Infant Baptism - The Heidelblog

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My mother and Grandparents were Roman Catholic (Italian-American also from NJ), so I am not 100% unfamiliar even if I wasn't raised in the Catholic Church. I got to experience the CREEPY shrine to her dead brother and the candles to get him out of Purgatory.

I also went to the RCC and took "A Catechism for Inquirers" and had lots of questions for the priest. He was honest about the answers and I ultimately decided that I couldn't accept Tradition over the plain reading of scripture and would not affirm a belief that I did not hold. So the RCC and I parted amicably.

I know what you mean about the DEEP stuff of Catholicism ... you really have to search to find it. Like they want the congregation kept like "medieval peasants".

As long as you know the seven sacrament's, how to say the rosary, the Act of Contrition prayer, when not to eat meat, go to confession on Saturday and Mass on Sunday (every Sunday) you are in…you get points for Holy Days of OBLIGATION Service attendance and Stations of The Cross walk through during Lent.

They still ask me if I want to help carry the Our Lady of Constantine statue through the streets on the Feast days…. I’d do it for all the free food but my back these days says no. My family, on my mother’s side is Neapolitan from a town of Filito, in Salerno. But I’m a mutt, with Welsh & Slovak Pa miners and farmers…and I had blond hair and light skin so I was lovingly called the Polack. I did stand out in all family pics amidst all the dark Southern Italian relatives.

 

[Christforums]

My mother and Grandparents were Roman Catholic (Italian-American also from NJ), so I am not 100% unfamiliar even if I wasn't raised in the Catholic Church. I got to experience the CREEPY shrine to her dead brother and the candles to get him out of Purgatory.

I also went to the RCC and took "A Catechism for Inquirers" and had lots of questions for the priest. He was honest about the answers and I ultimately decided that I couldn't accept Tradition over the plain reading of scripture and would not affirm a belief that I did not hold. So the RCC and I parted amicably.

I know what you mean about the DEEP stuff of Catholicism ... you really have to search to find it. Like they want the congregation kept like "medieval peasants".

Quit entertaining apostates
In all seriousness, I was educated through Roman Catholic schools and taught by Nuns and can relate to what you're conveying.
But, I am semi-seriousness about not entertaining those which have fallen away from the faith.

 

[Walter]

Despite what Google AI says (it picks up on what others say) Lutherans do not believe in baptismal regeneration: The Sacrament of Holy Baptism

and: Holy Baptism

Note, the difference between Lutheran and Presbyterian (Reformed) Confessions of faith I must admit is how deeply expounded the confessions are. If not versed in theological terminology (defined by Scripture and not the RCC) certainly anybody will be lost in the Lutheran Confessions of faith. Whereas the Presbyterians WCF and Heidelberg seemingly go to great length expounding each point.

Let me define baptismal regeneration as regeneration soon as the baptismal drops of water touch anybody. The best way to understand the Reformed (theologically Apostolic strict Lutherans and Presbyterians) is through Covenant Baptism. Generally, Covenant Baptism contrasts or vs. Dispensationalism. Augustine early church father believed in monergism and that all are born in Adam; therefore, baptism was necessary for an infant to enter into heaven no matter the slight sin the infant was guilty. That is, the current position of the Roman Catholic church, but if you read the Lutheran theology, you'll probably pick up a quick distinction because the institution of the word, and justification are also mentioned for "salvation" and not by baptism alone. And, that stands in contrast to most Baptist which believe there is an age of reason or accountability, and infants all go to heaven and are innocent enough before G-d (that comment addressed some).

I am Lutheran belonging to the LBC and theologically Calvinist as well Covenant and see no discrepancies between the Lutherans and Presbyterians I do not see within each of their own bodies. In other words, it isn't uncommon to find a 1 point Arminian inside the Reformed Presbyterian church or 4-point Calvinist by what many others call them. I consider them Arminian because it is all 5 points or nothing (logical contradiction).

Here's a good reference if desiring to understand the Reformed position: Covenant Theology And Infant Baptism - The Heidelblog

Thanks for the distinction between Catholic and Lutheran theology regarding baptism. The information I was relying on came from the LCMS official website and honestly I couldn't distinguish any difference between Catholic, Anglican and Catholic/Orthodox teaching regarding baptism.

'Jesus Himself commands Baptism and tells us that Baptism is water used together with the Word of God (Matt. 28:19-20).

Because of this, we believe that Baptism is one of the miraculous means of grace (another is God’s Word as it is written or spoken), through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person’s heart (see Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12.13).

Terms the Bible uses to talk about the beginning of faith include “conversion” and “regeneration.” Although we do not claim to understand fully how this happens, we believe that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant.

We believe this because the Bible says that infants can believe (Matt. 18:6) and that new birth (regeneration) happens in Baptism (John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6). The infant’s faith cannot yet, of course, be verbally expressed or articulated by the child, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., Acts 2:38-39; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15).' Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod official website

 

[atpollard]

Quit entertaining apostates
In all seriousness, I was educated through Roman Catholic schools and taught by Nuns and can relate to what you're conveying.
But, I am semi-seriousness about not entertaining those which have fallen away from the faith.

When I was a newly converted atheist, I did the only thing that was reasonable.

I took the dust covered RSV Bible that had been given to me when I was 5 years old and had questions about God that I asked the Lutheran Priest about (because I was infant baptized Lutheran before being raised atheist, so that made me a Lutheran) and started reading at Genesis 1:1.

Then I found the nearest “Church” (which happened to be a RCC) and started asking questions.

Then I went to the NEXT nearest Church (Church of God of Anderson Indiana).

Then someone there suggested we try the Evangelical Free Church, so I went there with my Christian posse.

Then I took an online quiz that said I was a 100% match to something called a “Reformed Baptist”, so I went and found a Southern Baptist Church and studied the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

Then I met a cute girl that attended a Pentecostal Church, so I went there (and married her).

Then I attended several churches so my daughter could be with other Christian youth.

Now I alternate between a local Church of God (the Cleveland Tennessee one) and a Southern Baptist Church. (The Southern Baptist Church is where I can get fed but have no opportunity to be of service and the Church of God is where there are people that I can help but it is hard to get fed.)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When I was a newly converted atheist, I did the only thing that was reasonable.

I took the dust covered RSV Bible that had been given to me when I was 5 years old and had questions about God that I asked the Lutheran Priest about (because I was infant baptized Lutheran before being raised atheist, so that made me a Lutheran) and started reading at Genesis 1:1.

Then I found the nearest “Church” (which happened to be a RCC) and started asking questions.

Then I went to the NEXT nearest Church (Church of God of Anderson Indiana).

Then someone there suggested we try the Evangelical Free Church, so I went there with my Christian posse.

Then I took an online quiz that said I was a 100% match to something called a “Reformed Baptist”, so I went and found a Southern Baptist Church and studied the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

Then I met a cute girl that attended a Pentecostal Church, so I went there (and married her).

Then I attended several churches so my daughter could be with other Christian youth.

Now I alternate between a local Church of God (the Cleveland Tennessee one) and a Southern Baptist Church. (The Southern Baptist Church is where I can get fed but have no opportunity to be of service and the Church of God is where there are people that I can help but it is hard to get fed.)

Have you ever looked into a Primitive Baptist church? If you live in Tennessee there must be a few…and if you need a good recommendation, my Elder from Florida could provide one since he interacts with them.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Quit entertaining apostates
In all seriousness, I was educated through Roman Catholic schools and taught by Nuns and can relate to what you're conveying.
But, I am semi-seriousness about not entertaining those which have fallen away from the faith.

I don’t consider them to have fallen away from faith, as there are quite a few who are very serious about studying the Word…but they are mostly stuck in a system of Tradition, Dare I SayDogma, Familiarity, Heritage etc., and that is very difficult to dispense with. My mother’s family would say that our ancestors go back to the apostles ( Peter ) in forming a Roman Catholic Church family, so why be anything else? It was not until I looked around and decided to leave them did I get some incredible push back from my very family members. So my point is that it’s not easy to just leave an established Religious practice. Not until you perhaps look at it from the prospective of spiritual growth…both yours and your families. At this point I want a church that really integrates worship to the whole family, IE., what is God instructing me to do with my life and how does that positively effect my family, first my own kid’s & grandchildren and then my neighbors and their families. And I sincerely believe you unload all the garbage of your past life for the betterment of your present & future life. And for me it was easy, because in my area of the world there was allot of deviant pedofile priests destroying many Catholic young people. Then, there was a falling away of sanctity and with it trust in the RCC church. Granted there are many in other non Catholic Churches that have experienced similar, but the RCC got exposed and that was it for me.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Works based religions would be one that makes a requirement to be saved due to anything required by us to be doing apart from receiving Jesus as our Lord and Savior by grace alone thru faith alone

 

[JesusFan]

Despite what Google AI says (it picks up on what others say) Lutherans do not believe in baptismal regeneration: The Sacrament of Holy Baptism

and: Holy Baptism

Note, the difference between Lutheran and Presbyterian (Reformed) Confessions of faith I must admit is how deeply expounded the confessions are. If not versed in theological terminology (defined by Scripture and not the RCC) certainly anybody will be lost in the Lutheran Confessions of faith. Whereas the Presbyterians WCF and Heidelberg seemingly go to great length expounding each point.

Let me define baptismal regeneration as regeneration soon as the baptismal drops of water touch anybody. The best way to understand the Reformed (theologically Apostolic strict Lutherans and Presbyterians) is through Covenant Baptism. Generally, Covenant Baptism contrasts or vs. Dispensationalism. Augustine early church father believed in monergism and that all are born in Adam; therefore, baptism was necessary for an infant to enter into heaven no matter the slight sin the infant was guilty. That is, the current position of the Roman Catholic church, but if you read the Lutheran theology, you'll probably pick up a quick distinction because the institution of the word, and justification are also mentioned for "salvation" and not by baptism alone. And, that stands in contrast to most Baptist which believe there is an age of reason or accountability, and infants all go to heaven and are innocent enough before G-d (that comment addressed some).

I am Lutheran belonging to the LBC and theologically Calvinist as well Covenant and see no discrepancies between the Lutherans and Presbyterians I do not see within each of their own bodies. In other words, it isn't uncommon to find a 1 point Arminian inside the Reformed Presbyterian church or 4-point Calvinist by what many others call them. I consider them Arminian because it is all 5 points or nothing (logical contradiction).

Here's a good reference if desiring to understand the Reformed position: Covenant Theology And Infant Baptism - The Heidelblog

We Baptists would see only those who are actually are in the new Covenant are to partake of water Baptism, as we do not see from th scriptures any difference being sprinkled water upon a child or infant grants them entry into the NC or any spiritual blessings, as we see being raised in a Christion home and being taught in a Christian church would be the spirital benefits for any child regardless if water baptized or nor

 

[atpollard]

Have you ever looked into a Primitive Baptist church? If you live in Tennessee there must be a few…and if you need a good recommendation, my Elder from Florida could provide one since he interacts with them.

I live on the Florida Gulf Coast. It was just the Church of God with a HQ in Cleveland TN vs the Church of God with a HQ in Anderson, IN. The first is sort of Pentecostal leaning (but not "out of control") and the second is part of the Wesleyan Holiness movement (founded by preachers in wagons riding circuits on the Great Plains). So they are both "Church of God" in name, but completely different in character.

 

[37818]

We believe this because the Bible says that infants can believe (Matt. 18:6) . . . .

 

[Walter]

@37818-I was only quoting from a Lutheran (LCMS) website. I don't think it's a verse to support baptismal regeneration of infants. They obviously do. My intention in quoting from that website was to show that unless their definition of baptismal regeneration is different than that of Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox churches, they do indeed believe in it.

The writings of the Early Church strongly support infant baptism and the fact that the bible states that whole households were baptized makes it clear that it was practiced from the very beginning of the Church.

The OP (a Calvinist Lutheran!) stated Lutherans don't believe in baptismal regeneration. All my reading of Lutheran website strongly supports a doctrinal position that they do. I am hoping the OP will back up their claim better than what I read in a previous post as even local Lutheran clergy agrees that they believe in baptismal regeneration and used Luther's own words to support it. Even the catechisms of Lutheranism seem to strongly support it.

While I have heard their small sects of conservative Lutherans that have beliefs very different than most orthodox Lutherans, I have never heard of a Calvinist sect. I have heard there are a few premillennialist Lutherans in upper Midwest somewhere. But, as a Calvinist Lutheran, this poster is certainly an anomaly.

 

[JesusFan]

@37818-I was only quoting from a Lutheran (LCMS) website. I don't think it's a verse to support baptismal regeneration of infants. They obviously do. My intention in quoting from that website was to show that unless their definition of baptismal regeneration is different than that of Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox churches, they do indeed believe in it.

The writings of the Early Church strongly support infant baptism and the fact that the bible states that whole households were baptized makes it clear that it was practiced from the very beginning of the Church.

The OP (a Calvinist Lutheran!) stated Lutherans don't believe in baptismal regeneration. All my reading of Lutheran website strongly supports a doctrinal position that they do. I am hoping the OP will back up their claim better than what I read in a previous post as even local Lutheran clergy agrees that they believe in baptismal regeneration and used Luther's own words to support it. Even the catechisms of Lutheranism seem to strongly support it.

While I have heard their small sects of conservative Lutherans that have beliefs very different than most orthodox Lutherans, I have never heard of a Calvinist sect. I have heard there are a few premillennialist Lutherans in upper Midwest somewhere. But, as a Calvinist Lutheran, this poster is certainly an anomaly.

My understanding is that Rome affirms that in the sacrament of baptism, God directly works in the waster being administered period, as its supernatural infusing grace into baby, while Lutherans see it as God giving saving faith to the baby while exposed to the sacrament , while we Baptists see it as babies just getting all wet

 

[Christforums]

We Baptists would see only those who are actually are in the new Covenant are to partake of water Baptism, as we do not see from th scriptures any difference being sprinkled water upon a child or infant grants them entry into the NC or any spiritual blessings, as we see being raised in a Christion home and being taught in a Christian church would be the spirital benefits for any child regardless if water baptized or nor

If every Credo Baptist could be accounted for and no Credo Baptist ever fell apostate, then you could be able to substantiate your position as judge over all other's salvation. Regeneration is not dependent upon the character or powers of the baptizer nor any opinion of any man. Your individual belief is no different than the principles held by the R.C.C. This is when I expect every Baptist to isolate and edify you or fall into the same theological categorization (guilty by silence and no "Protestant").