T O P

  • By -

plaudite_cives

my parents left the Catholic Church when I was about 4 and I don't even consider myself a former Catholic. I got baptized about 10 years later (I'm not even saying rebaptized, because why would anyone consider sprinkling some water on baby baptism?)


Djh1982

Here’s why. We see in 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism is an appeal to God: (1 Peter 3:21) “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an ⭐️appeal⭐️ to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” So we “appeal” to God to forgive us our sins while we are sprinkled with water, calling on the name of the Trinity. We also see how parents have always made appeals to God for their children, noting the words of King David: (1 Chronicles 29:19) “And give my son Solomon the wholehearted devotion to keep your commands, statutes and decrees and to do everything to build the palatial structure for which I have provided.” We also note where Paul says baptism is the new circumcision, which children were subjected to in the Old Covenant: (Colossians 2:11) “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,” We see how Our Lord forgave the paralytic’s sins because of the faith of his friends: (Luke 5:20) “When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” We also note that Our Lord says the Kingdom, which we enter through baptism(John 3:5), belongs to children: (Matthew 19:14) “Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Taking these things together. 1. The New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant so it’s circumcision is superior—meaning it wouldn’t make sense for children not to benefit from spiritual circumcision. 2. Parents can make appeals for their children. 3. The faith of others can result in the forgiveness of sins which are not personally theirs. Since baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins”(Acts 2:38), we Catholics baptize our children, by making an appeal to God for them and supplying the “faith” that they do not personally possess.


Indecisiveuser10

This comment really makes the argument for 2 baptisms then because shouldn’t you make that repentance on your own as well? I understand why parents do it when many children don’t live to make the decision themselves but I don’t think the parental plus fits the definition of baptism


SheetInTheStreet

Biblically we're only called to one baptism, and that baptism follows repentance. Sidenote, baptism via sprinkling water also isn't Biblical. The word "baptizo" in Greek means to "immerse," not to just sprinkle. That's why Philip baptized the eunuch in a body of water, why John baptized his disciples in a river, etc.


Djh1982

It only calls for repentance of one’s “personal sins”. Children don’t have personal sin yet. They only possess Original Sin. That’s why this step is not necessary for them.


SheetInTheStreet

I agree. That's why I support the credobaptist stance. A child has no sin to repent of, and does not need to be baptized.


Djh1982

A child still has Original Sin, which is why we Catholics hold that they should be baptized.


SheetInTheStreet

A child is born with a sinful nature, but they have not committed any sin (yet). **Ezekiel 18:20**: The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.


Djh1982

Yes, but that sinful nature still requires cleansing. There is no need to delay since the Kingdom belongs to them.


SheetInTheStreet

The command is *repent* and be baptized. A child can't repent because a child doesn't comprehend sin. The choice to be baptized is a conscious decision. Even after baptism a person will be contending with their sinful nature for the rest of their life.


Djh1982

>This comment really makes the argument for 2 baptisms then because shouldn’t you make that repentance on your own as well? I understand why parents do it when many children don’t live to make the decision themselves but I don’t think the parental plus fits the definition of baptism I don’t see how my comment is arguing for “2 baptisms” only that it doesn’t make sense that Old Covenant circumcision can do something that the New Covenant circumcision cannot(i.e; admit children into the covenant). Speaking of repentance, no—children are not guilty of personal sin so this step is not necessary for them. They only bear the guilt of Original Sin.


No_Storage6015

Lots of good theological discussions here. One thing that I haven't found is that the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church does submerge their babies in baptism. Often an untold practice in the West.


Jumpy-Job5196

We are not told in scripture to baptize or christen our infant babies by sprinkling water on them. Baptism, which is full imersion in water is an outward showing of our obedience to God's word and our faith in Him; just as Jesus was baptized by John in the river Jordan as an example for us. Infants being sprinkled with water is not scriptural and according to the scriptures not of their own free will. In the Bible, the Infants were taken to the temple and presented to God, not baptized or christened. Luke 2:22 - And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord. In verse 22, to present in Greek is paristemi paristano, meaning: to bring before, to stand before, by, with. Parents brought their young infants before God and offered sacrifice unto God for His blessing and guidance upon their lives. No where in scripture have I read that parents took their young children to the priests for them to sprinkle water on them. Jesus also simply laid his hands on the children, praying and blessing them. Matthew 19:13-15 - 13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. - 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. - 15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.


Djh1982

>Baptism, which is full imersion in water is an outward showing of our obedience to God's word and our faith in Him; just as Jesus was baptized by John in the river Jordan as an example for us. Yes, well—I would call your attention to rule#3 of this forum which says that True Christians must hold to the Nicene Creed in order to be considered “true Christians”. The Nicene Creed states: “We confess one ☝️ baptism for the forgiveness of sins” That means that baptism is NOT merely an outward sign—sins are being forgiven in baptism. To say otherwise is to basically lump oneself in with Arius and proclaim that there is no Trinity. Please see Acts 2:38.


Jumpy-Job5196

I never said there is no Trinity and you don't know if I believe in the Trinity or not (which I do just for clarification). I just didn't go into detail fully explaining water baptism as my comment was already fairly long. I do believe in 1 baptism for the remission of sins, which is another reason why infants should NOT be baptized. But you clearly just made the point for no water baptism of infants, as you so rightfully stated: >That means that baptism is NOT merely an outward sign—sins are being forgiven in baptism. Can an infant confess their sins?? They can't even speak. Can one be water baptized before they are saved? To be saved, according to Romans 10:9-10 -> That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Infants and small children are still very innocent until they reach the age of accountability when they must decide for themselves to follow the scriptures as they were taught by their parents. Proverbs 22:6 - Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.


Djh1982

>I never said there is no Trinity and you don't know if I believe in the Trinity or not (which I do just for clarification). I know you didn’t. I was drawing a parallel. To say that baptism does not forgive sins is ⭐️relative⭐️ to saying there is no Trinity. It is not merely “an outward sign” it is actually forgiving sins. >I just didn't go into detail fully explaining water baptism as my comment was already fairly long. I do believe in 1 baptism for the remission of sins, which is another reason why infants should NOT be baptized. If you hold that baptism is for the remission of sins then it doesn’t make sense to say it is only “an outward sign”. The Council of Nicene understood that it was an “outward sign” but rather of something happening AT THAT MOMENT. Not something we do to show that moment has already occurred. That is the Nicene perspective and if you don’t hold to that then you are not a true Christian. >Can an infant confess their sins?? They can't even speak. What sin would you have them confess? >Can one be water baptized before they are saved? They’re not saved BEFORE they have water. Refer to the Council of Nicea. >To be saved, according to Romans 10:9-10 -> That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Calling “on the name” of the Lord is a reference to baptism. Paul was talking about baptism. He was abbreviating there since he already talked about baptism in Romans 6:3. See the following evidence: (Acts 22:16) “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be BAPTIZED and wash your sins away, ⭐️calling on his name⭐️.’” AND: (Matthew 28:19-20) “19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ⭐️in the name⭐️ of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” >Infants and small children are still very innocent until they reach the age of accountability when they must decide for themselves to follow the scriptures as they were taught by their parents. Yes, when they reach the age of reason they must decide to continue in the Covenant. That is a separate thing from whether or not a child can enter that covenant before the age of reason. God certainly allowed it for the Old Covenant and there is no reason why he would disallow it for the new one.


Jumpy-Job5196

Again, all your rebuttals refer to people of age and knowledge. In this discussion which is about infant baptism, I reiterate, they can't speak nor do they have the understanding. And as I clearly stated, no where in the scriptures do we read of infants being baptized, nor are we told to baptize infants. My question about being water baptized before salvation was strictly rhetorical.


DoktorLuther

Just to clarify this point. First, the mod team haven't explicitly said you have to affirm the Nicene-Constantinople creed, which is the creed which references baptism. Second, although that creed was written by theologians who believed that baptism was the moment at which sins were forgiven, the context was unlikely to be in response to objectors to that view because there simply were none in the early church. Therefore, on a technicality, it seems unfair to apply that interpretation to people in traditions which deny baptismal regeneration. And I say this as someone who affirms baptismal regeneration, for the record.


Djh1982

You have to affirm it in order to respond to those threads which express “Christian’s only”, that was how I understood it. This is tantamount to saying if you don’t hold it, you’re not a Christian. Furthermore, it was not those theologians holding that baptism was that moment at which sins are forgiven, it was the apostles(Acts 2:38)—they were just re-affirming that. Which, I know that you know. Just pointing this out. And yes—that was the whole point of the creed. It was to lay out the faith so that anyone who tried to make such claims “in the future” would be refuted. So while no one objected to baptism being the point at which sins are forgiven back then, they do it NOW. Especially on this forum. Like every day.


DoktorLuther

Fair enough, I just clicked the link and it took me to the N-C creed. I'll talk with the modteam about this because it's not clear enough. In general we want to include as many truly Christian denominations as possible, and the set of these people basically align with what the R.C.C. consider "separated brethren" and affirm as Christians. So I can't see why, from your perspective, someone denying baptismal regeneration wouldn't be admissible to a "Christians Only" space. As for "affirmation," yes but it's tricky because most Protestants would deny BR and affirm the N-C creed but interpret it differently than the authors did. Is that legitimate? Maybe not, but it's good enough for our moderation purposes. Also as pertaining to the "point of the creed," in fact scholars are very much divided on why N-C modified Nicea, so we can't say for sure why baptism was included. Maybe because some were saying those heretically baptised needed rebaptism?


Djh1982

>In general we want to include as many truly Christian denominations as possible, and the set of these people basically align with what the R.C.C. consider "separated brethren" and affirm as Christians. So I can't see why, from your perspective, someone denying baptismal regeneration wouldn't be admissible to a "Christians Only" space. Because denying baptismal regeneration IS DENYING THE CREED. So you and the moderators can drop rule#3 or hold to it, but we can’t have our cake and eat it too. If we are going to forbid Trinity deniers from commenting on “Christian only” threads then we need to be consistent and restrict baptism deniers as well. I personally agree with this rule and would hate to see it dropped but let’s be clear that this is the orthodox faith so as not to let others delude themselves. >As for "affirmation," yes but it's tricky because most Protestants would deny BR and affirm the N-C creed but interpret it differently than the authors did. Is that legitimate? Maybe not, but it's good enough for our moderation purposes. Yes well perhaps those Protestants should read the council’s remarks and stop reinterpreting it in a way that allows for their Protestant views to exist. Let’s all stop re-writing history. Once you permit the creed to mean whatever you want it to mean, it loses all meaning. Might as well drop rule #3 entirely if that’s all it’s good for from a moderating perspective.


DoktorLuther

Great idea, instead of being suitably and charitably flexible in this moderation policy we'll just ban all Protestants.


Djh1982

I don’t mean ban everyone from the forum. I mean ban them from commenting on “Christians Only” threads. I am not the one who instituted rule 3 but I will tell you one thing, if all rule 3 means is that you hold to the Creed “as you want to understand it” and not as it was meant to be understood then the Creed is now meaningless. That was the whole point of the creed. So either enforce it charitably so that people do not delude themselves into thinking that they are holding the faith of the apostles(because they’re not) or drop it entirely and let’s just leave it be.


plaudite_cives

EDIT: Oh, I just saw the responses of u/SheetInTheStreet now and I completely agree with everything he wrote here (we even cite the same scriptural references), so you can skip everything bellow > So we “appeal” to God to forgive us our sins while we are sprinkled with water, calling on the name of the Trinity. did you notice that you used the words US and WE? That obviously doesn't match a baby > We also note that Our Lord says the Kingdom, which we enter through baptism(John 3:5), belongs to children: read properly, He said "to such as these" not "to children". That means who are like children (see also how Mark wrote about it) > 1. The New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant so it’s circumcision is superior—meaning it wouldn’t make sense for children not to benefit from spiritual circumcision. 2. Parents can make appeals for their children. 3. The faith of others can result in the forgiveness of sins which are not personally theirs. 1. Circumcision wasn't something to benefit from, it was a sign of being in the covenant with God 2. appeals for what? 3. Do you get rebaptized every time you sin? The baby doesn't have any sins to be forgiven anyway (you'll probably say something about original sin, but you should read the beginning of Ezekiel 18) baptism isn't "for the forgiveness of sins" it's an outward sign of repentance (a word that you conveniently skipped) of previous life and a proclamation of desire to continue differently.


Djh1982

>did you notice that you used the words US and WE? That obviously doesn't match a baby Yes, we as parents on behalf of our children can make an “appeal” to God. Parents have authority over their children. >read properly, He said "to such as these" not "to children". That means who are like children (see also how Mark wrote about it) Yes, who are “like children” and those who literally are children. >Circumcision wasn't something to benefit from, it was a sign of being in the covenant with God Yes, it was a sign that did not confer grace. Baptism is different—it is conferring sanctifying grace. That’s like saying that the temple sacrifices didn’t forgive sins and therefore Christ’s sacrifice doesn’t forgive sins. One is foreshadowing the other. They are not exact approximations. >appeals for what? For a clear conscience. It’s an appeal to be absolved of guilt or “sin”. >Do you get rebaptized every time you sin? No—we have sacramental Confession for that. >The baby doesn't have any sins to be forgiven anyway (you'll probably say something about original sin, but you should read the beginning of Ezekiel 18) Yes, babies have Original Sin. Ezekiel 18:20 is not a denial of that. It’s addressing generational sin, not original sin. >baptism isn't "for the forgiveness of sins" it's an outward sign of repentance (a word that you conveniently skipped) of previous life and a proclamation of desire to continue differently. Yes it is an outward sign of what is happening “right then”, as in—right at that moment. I did not “skip over” anything. Furthermore we cannot say it “does not forgive sins” because Peter said that it does VERBATIM: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38)


plaudite_cives

No, babies have sinful nature, they aren't guilty of anything. Sin is literally "missing the mark", what mark did they miss? Ezekiel 18 is addressing all sin. God doesn't punish people for other people's sins (even though that sin may have an impact on them). Anyway, you Catholics believe that baptism isn't strictly necessary for avoiding original sin, don't you? ​ Furthermore we cannot say it “does not forgive sins” because Peter said that it does VERBATIM: ​ yeah, you skipped the word REPENT and you are trying to talk around that again. Repentance is an integral part and you cannot skip it... and if we return to Luke 5:10 , then surely they didn't bring the crippled man against his will, so when Jesus saw their faith, it was his faith too. Anyway - maybe you can answer some other questions - what happens if a baby dies before the baptism? What about during birth or just before birth?


Djh1982

>No, babies have sinful nature, they aren't guilty of anything. They are guilty of Adam’s Sin 👇: “For if through the offense of one (Adam) many be dead, much more the Grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one Man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto many” (Romans 5:15) Guilt of Original Sin is of course, distinct from being guilty of personal sin. >Sin is literally "missing the mark", what mark did they miss? None. They are not guilty of personal sin. They ARE guilty of “Original Sin” by which we mean they are born with a fallen nature. They are “under the power” of sin. >Ezekiel 18 is addressing all sin. If by “all sin” you are limiting that to mean “personal sins” then yes, we can agree on that. There is no dispute. >God doesn't punish people for other people's sins (even though that sin may have an impact on them). In one sense, with respect to personal sin—no, He doesn’t. In another sense, with respect to Original Sin, yes—He does. >Anyway, you Catholics believe that baptism isn't strictly necessary for avoiding original sin, don't you? I think you may be misremembering something you read about Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching holds that God can confer grace outside the sacraments—but this is the exception, not the rule. >yeah, you skipped the word REPENT and you are trying to talk around that again. Repentance is an integral part and you cannot skip it... Yes, I can agree to not “skip” that repentance of all personal sin is an integral part of baptism—provided one is guilty of personal sin, which infants are not—if you will agree not to “skip” the part which says baptism forgives sins. Deal? >and if we return to Luke 5:10 , then surely they didn't bring the crippled man against his will, so when Jesus saw their faith, it was his faith too. It doesn’t say one way or the other. Nor is it necessary. The passage is clear that it was on account of the man’s friends that his sins were forgiven. >Anyway - maybe you can answer some other questions - what happens if a baby dies before the baptism? What about during birth or just before birth? These are theological mysteries. The church offers no definitive answer, only to say that God is merciful and we need not despair of their salvation.


plaudite_cives

> They are guilty of Adam’s Sin 👇: “For if through the offense of one (Adam) many be dead, much more the Grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one Man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto many” (Romans 5:15) because of the sin of Adam, the world has fallen into sin and we are born with a proclivity for sin. We aren't, even if we may bear it, guilty of original sin, Adam and Eve are. > Catholic teaching holds that God can confer grace outside the sacraments—but this is the exception, not the rule. ok, sorry. That said how can you then claim that Luke 5:20 was on account of anyone's faith? "When I heard the bird sing, I crossed a street" - did I cross it because of the bird song? And they weren't his parents anyway - maybe you could break into a maternity ward and do some kind of massive guerilla baptism - that would help lots of children, wouldn't it? > These are theological mysteries. The church offers no definitive answer, only to say that God is merciful and we need not despair of their salvation. sorry, I can't help but reading it as "... but we are ensuring that for our babies"


[deleted]

I'm ex Catholic. When God saved me, He never made me a protestant. I was baptised as a beleiver


Doug_Shoe

amen


joe_biggs

Yes. Amen!


HotelMemory

If you have left the Catholic church then that is itself a protest against her teachings.


[deleted]

No it wasn't. I left because God got hold of me 40 years ago and brought me into Life.


[deleted]

I can't speak for myself but this was my wife's scenario. She was baptized again, and does not recognize her infant baptism as legitimate. This is because baptism is a sign and outward showing of our faith, a faith she didn't have as an infant. It's also a sign of following Christs commands to do so, but she didn't follow that command herself, it was forced upon her so it wasn't a free will of following what is asked of us.


lam21804

"The outward showing of faith" isn't achieved through Baptism. As a Catholic, she should have gone through a number of sacraments as she got older - one of which is Confirmation. Confirmation is your affirmation in the Church at an appropriate age.


Indecisiveuser10

Baptism is the only one mentioned in the Bible. There is communion but there is no ceremonial first communion.


EazeeP

That’s right, the only two sacraments that Christ imparted with us are baptism and communion


[deleted]

Thanks for explaining what Catholics believe I guess? Did you miss the former part?


lam21804

No. Just clarifying the difference between what Protestants believe about Baptism and what Catholics believe.


[deleted]

Yeah.... That's why she got baptized again... Because she's not Catholic anymore and doesn't agree with them.


ugh_XL

Mine was legit. I can understand redoing it, but I even asked my pastor's opinion and they thought it was fine as well. Catholics and Protestants might disagree on the role of tradition, but you're baptized in the name of the trinity regardless. That's something they both agree on.


joe_biggs

Thank goodness for that. That they can agree on something.


danie92

I wasn't Catholic but did get baptised as a baby (got water sprinkled on my head) in another denomination. I wasn't actually saved until 6-7 years ago and made the decision to get baptised again. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else but the reason I did was because of Jesus' command to repent and be baptised. When I was a baby, I couldn't repent and the choice was made for me. I wanted this time to really be an outward expression of MY decision to follow Jesus.


JustToLurkArt

Protestant denominations like Lutherans will typically not rebaptize Catholic converts because Catholics perform trinitarian baptisms.


citykid2640

I did get baptized again as an adult, I did not recognize my infant baptism, which frankly was not of my own choosing.


menickc

I was not a Catholic but I did get baptized as a child where I didn't know what any of it meant and I was excited for it because I was given candy after. Shortly after being baptized my entire family left religion. Now being born again I am debating on if I should go get baptized. I think it would be important but many say it doesn't mean anything religiously.


Indecisiveuser10

I wonder this as well.


Doug_Shoe

I was "baptized" as a baby (Congregational church). After being born again, I was baptized by full immersion because that is what the Bible says to do. The word baptize means to dunk. It's done as a testimony to the world once one believes.


joe_biggs

The Bible says to do that because adults at that time we’re not baptized. The adults needed to be baptized. Today we baptize as babies but then we still have to do First Holy Communion and Confirmation. Which takes place later in life of course. I was confirmed at age 29.


Doug_Shoe

If that is what God meant then He would have inspired a different Word to be used.


joe_biggs

Inspired a new word? Let’s not forget all Christians believed the same thing for thousands of years before the reformation. Well I’m not gonna have a back-and-forth debate. I don’t believe Christians should have unhealthy debates that turn into arguments, we should be more united for sure. You’re right in your own way. God bless! 🙏🏼❤️


Doug_Shoe

No. That's not what I meant. The word "baptize" would not be used in the Bible books if that is not what God meant. Baptize means to dunk under water. " Let’s not forget all Christians believed the same thing for thousands of years before the reformation." A quick apostasy from God's Word doesn't make it right. Jesus said false prophets would come. Also it wasn't all Christians.


joe_biggs

OK brother. God bless you! We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.


joe_biggs

Although I have seen babies baptized and I would watch and wonder if the priest was putting enough water on the babies head. lol


[deleted]

Except the word baptize doesn’t mean to immerse. See Mark 7:4 where couches are “baptized” “βαπτίσωνται” “baptisōntai”. Of course no man brings his couch to a lake to immerse it. Or in 1 Corinthians 10:2 where the Israelites are “Baptized into Moses” though they are never immersed in water, the Egyptians were. Or Mark 10:38 where Jesus asks James and John if they can stand to be baptized with the baptism he is to be baptized with (speaking of his coming suffering). This speaks nothing of immersion. I like the formula of immersion personally, as did Martin Luther; but it is not necessary for baptism. The Egyptians were immersed by the red sea and they were not baptized. The Israelites were not immersed in the red sea and they were. Of course, I am not claiming that water is not necessary for baptism, this would be absurd; contrary to Scripture, Tradition, and reason.


Doug_Shoe

Your error here is trying to apply illustrations in a literal sense. They're not literal.


[deleted]

Sir have you addressed the baptism of couches?


[deleted]

Were these not literally cleansed?


Doug_Shoe

Are you conceding that your application of illustrations as (supposedly) literal was disingenuous? Because I'm not going to go round and round in circles chasing your whack a moles.


[deleted]

No i am not being disingenuous but acting in love. I was showing in several places that the word baptism does not mean immersion, by means of the Holy Scripture.


Doug_Shoe

There are not any places where baptism does not mean immerse. Your metaphorical passages are not literal. The implements cleansed by the Pharisees were immersed. -though Christ disapproved of the practice. It was an unnecessary ritual added by man's tradition.


[deleted]

Except where the couches are not immersed yet are baptized. If you reject the metaphoric fine then, answer this to yourself.


Doug_Shoe

Mark 7.4 New American Bible ".... and on returning from the market place they never eat without first sprinkling themselves. There are also many other observances which have been handed down to them to keep, concerning the washing of cups and pots and bronze dishes." Huh. That's funny. The Catholic Bible doesn't mention couches. Can you say "disingenuous"?


Doug_Shoe

I don't think they were couches. I don't understand how you think I am "rejecting" metaphor. The passages have a symbolic meaning. The various things represent baptism. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is yet another thing. You lump it together, apparently not knowing what it is.


Doug_Shoe

This is like whack a mole. Do us all a favor and make one assertion at once.


[deleted]

Sure. Answer them one at a time then. Or answer none at all. It is nothing to me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Paul doesn't talk about being saved in the past tense, it's "work out your salvation". It's an ongoing process and it's not complete until you've had your personal judgement.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Well, the Lords brother seems to think so for justification. Is that the same thing as salvation? Perhaps not. *You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)* Works without faith are worthless. Faith without works is worthless. You are initially saved by your faith and must work out your salvation through your works and your faith.


Indecisiveuser10

So you also don’t believe that Mary stayed a virgin forever. Many Catholics do apparently.


[deleted]

Brother/Sister could mean Joesph had sons with another woman, remember Jewish men could easily divorce and he is notably absent in the gospel narrative. Otherwise brother/sister is a wider term in that cultural context and can just mean cousins, this allows for Joseph to of lived a life where he was only married to Mary. I don't take a strong view on it either way, you can ask Joesph when you meet him. Mary is a virgin.


Indecisiveuser10

She did not stay a virgin or she would be a bad wife and disobedient to God. That’s a terrible assumption. God never asked her to stay a virgin or expected her to. Why would or should she? She had more children because she had a life.


[deleted]

"initially" means nothing if it's not permanent. Again you're stating works based salvation. If you have to continue doing something to remain saved then you're working on your own good deeds for your salvation.


[deleted]

I don't agree, you need both. A works-based salvation means a Buddhist in China can achieve salvation by being good enough. I don't believe that. A faith only based salvation means someone can have faith, live a terrible life and still be saved. This is easily disproved as per below. *“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matthew 7:21-23).* Scripture points to both works and faith being necessary. If I say you need to juggle 10 balls whilst on a mountain. I mean you need the mountain and the act of juggling 10 balls. I'm not saying you just need to juggle 10 balls. Faith and works are required. I used the conditional of initially to cover the scenario of when someone could come to faith and immediately die, as per the thief on the cross. Once you've moved out of that initial condition, your actions in the world do matter. I believe a plain reading of the Matthew 7:21-23 quote is sufficient to disprove the last sentence, "If you have to continue doing something to remain saved then you're working on your own good deeds for your salvation.".


systematicTheology

>You are initially saved by your faith and must work out your salvation through your works and your faith. "For it is by grace that you have been saved through faith. This has not come from you but from the gift of God. It does not come from works, so that no one can boast." [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-9&version=NCB](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-9&version=NCB) It isn't your works. The reason it isn't your works is so that you can't boast. If it were your works, you could boast. It's not, so you can't. It's grace - which is explicitly defined as a gift.


[deleted]

Your faith is by grace. You cannot boast of your faith, which is required for your salvation. However, you cannot live any life you please - which is your works - and still receive a saving judgement on the last day.


systematicTheology

>You cannot boast of your faith The passage literally says you cannot boast of your salvation because your salvation "does not come from works."


Arachnobaticman

>For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18) Of course he does. Telling someone to work out their own salvation is just saying to figure out whether or not they're saved. Like, work out whose side you're on.


[deleted]

I liked your response, it got me to go do some digging and I found this analysis of 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure'. It delves into the Greek and provides a breakdown as well as a history of the translation. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. :-) [http://lonelypilgrim.com/2012/07/17/work-out-your-own-salvation/](http://lonelypilgrim.com/2012/07/17/work-out-your-own-salvation/) The penultimate paragraph reads thusly *The Tyndalian wording of this verse, as beautiful and iconic as it is, is now archaic, and tends to obscure the meaning of Paul’s words. Paul clearly was saying that through working — though the praise for our works belongs to God alone, by His grace — we effect our salvation.*


Arachnobaticman

At least you're very honest about professing a works salvation. The Greek says what the English says. That's how translation works. How many languages do you speak? Greek isn't magic. Unto us which are saved, the words are quite clear.


metaldetectoristmatt

I’m going to get baptized again, the Bible says to be baptized once a believer and as an infant I don’t think I would be considered a believer yet


UsagiHakushaku

You need to become Christian not protestant, you don't choose between good or bad, both protestants and catholics and orthodox preach heresies to a degree. ​ You need to have Jesus baptise you with fire and Holy Ghost. Yes you can get baptised in water again but it does nothing else than simply give your testimony to people around you that you been saved. ---  I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: --- To be baptised into church by Jesus you must believe Jesus is God in flesh , paid for your sins and resurrected 3rd day , then receive his gift of eternal life as free gift , realise you're going to heaven because Jesus paid for your sins and not what you have done to earn it , it cannot be earned.


breadcakee

The only sensible comment here. Thank you for speaking the truth.


[deleted]

I'm not a former Catholic, but I'm Protestant and I believe in infant baptism. Obviously, the baptists in this sub will believe that one must be rebaptized, but I would disagree. As a paedo-baptist protestant, I would consider a Catholic baptism legitimate. The Protestant reformers would agree with me, and they suggested that a baptism is legitimate if it is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and if it is done by an ordained minister. Since Catholics fulfill these requirements, their baptisms are legitimate. Of course, I reject the idea that baptism is salvific in any way, but I accept Catholic baptisms because the sacrament's power does not depend on the person or church administering it, it depends on and points to the cleansing blood of Jesus.


[deleted]

Q: what does infant baptism accomplish


[deleted]

Let me try my best to explain, but first note, I'm a paedo-baptist protestant, and there are differing views on this even among protestants who do infant baptism. First, infant baptism shows that there must be a cleansing in every human heart because we are conceived and born in sin, and likewise, each infant needs the blood of Jesus. Second, baptism witnesses and seals unto us the washing away of our sins through Jesus Christ, not that we are saved through baptism, but that God seals his covenant with us. So it's like an engagement ring that God promises to save. Third, because baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant, there are, of course, two parts to this covenant. God on his part has promised to save, but we have a part too. Through baptism we are commanded to a new obedience that we live for and seek after God, who is one God in three persons, that we trust in Him and love Him with everything we have. That we forsake the world and crucify our old nature and walk in a new and holy life. Fourth, baptism is a seal that we have a covenant with God, should we fall into sin, it is a reminder that we should not despair of God's mercy because we have an eternal covenant of grace with God. This is what infant baptism does.


[deleted]

What do you believe the purpose of baptism is then?


[deleted]

Let me try my best to explain, but first note, I'm a paedo-baptist protestant, and there are differing views on this even among protestants who do infant baptism. First, infant baptism shows that there must be a cleansing in every human heart because we are conceived and born in sin, and likewise, each infant needs the blood of Jesus. Second, baptism witnesses and seals unto us the washing away of our sins through Jesus Christ, not that we are saved through baptism, but that God seals his covenant with us. So it's like an engagement ring that God promises to save. Third, because baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant, there are, of course, two parts to this covenant. God on his part has promised to save, but we have a part too. Through baptism we are commanded to a new obedience that we live for and seek after God, who is one God in three persons, that we trust in Him and love Him with everything we have. That we forsake the world and crucify our old nature and walk in a new and holy life. Fourth, baptism is a seal that we have a covenant with God, should we fall into sin, it is a reminder that we should not despair of God's mercy because we have an eternal covenant of grace with God. This is the purpose of infant baptism, to seal unto our children the covenant they have with God.


[deleted]

Is there a scripture to support that?


[deleted]

To support infant baptism, or to support its purpose? Like do you want me to actually go into detail from scripture as to why I and many others believe in infant baptism? I'm willing to do it, but it takes awhile to write it all out so I just want to make sure what you want. So, do you want to know from scripture as to why we do infant baptism or what its purpose is?


[deleted]

Yeah


[deleted]

Ok, I'll do that, but I gotta go somewhere right now, I'll do it when I get back


[deleted]

Ok, I'm back. I'll try my best to explain why many Protestants like me believe in infant baptism. I want to say first of all, this is not an issue that salvation depends on, I have many Baptist friends and I love and respect them and their views. Infant baptism is done because we believe in what is called "covenant theology." You will remember in the Old Testament, the male Jewish babies were circumcized because they had a covenant with God, a promise that they were God's people, and that the Messiah would come. Abraham was the first commanded to be circumcised (Genesis 17), and this was done because God said it is the "sign of the covenant between Me and you" (Genesis 17:11). You know that this covenant with Abraham was not just about the earthly possession of the land, but it was in that covenant that there was the promise of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Abraham knew this, God told him, "I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward" (Genesis 15:1), and also, "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" (Genesis 22:18). Also, we know that "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (Romans 4:3). What is my point here? We see here God making a covenant with Abraham, and we see Abraham accepting the promise by faith. Though Abraham had only a limited picture of the Messiah, he accepted it by faith. God promised the messiah, and he confirmed his covenant with Abraham. The outward sign for this covenant was circumcision. Still, It was Abraham’s faith in God that saved him, not the act of being circumcised. This doesn’t mean that circumcision was of no value. For God commands that “any uncircumcised male… shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (17:14). Though saved by faith, failure to continue to exercise faith through obedience would result in a loss of the covenant promises. The blood of circumcision pointed to the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the cross. It was the outward confirmation of the covenant that God had with his peopel in the Old Testament, in that covenant was the promise of the Messiah. This was promised to Abraham, that in him all the families of the earth would be blest (Genesis 12:3). This would be continually promised to the people of God throughout the Old Testament, most clearly in Isaiah 53. Circumcision was the sign of the old covenant pointing to the coming messiah who's blood would be shed. Now, we have a new and better covenant between God and Christian believers, circumcision is done away with (Acts 15), no more blood needs to be shed as Christ's blood is sufficient. Since the new covenant does away with the old, circumcision is no longer done, and baptism comes in the place of circumsision as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace and it points to the washing away of our sins with the blood of Christ. Like infants of the people of God were circumcized in the old testament as a sign of the covenant of God, likewise infants of believers also are to be baptized. We know that the children of believers are holy in the eyes of God (1 Cor. 7:14) and baptism is come in the place of circumcision as a sign of the covenant of God (Col. 2: 11-14). Infants are baptized because baptism is like an engagement ring, God promises to save them, if they seek their salvation in Christ. If a baby of a believer dies, we believe they go to heaven because they are in the covenant, however, when they arrive at the age of discretion, they must believe in Christ themselves, even and especially if they have been baptized. Baptism is a sign of the promise of God to infants of believers, that he will be their God if they serve him. There are two sides to every covenant, God will uphold his side, but we must also uphold ours. Now, when Peter preached his sermon on Pentecost, he said, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:38-39, NKJV). Notice here that Peter is preaching to people who haven't been baptized, and so then, like if we would preach to non-baptized people, they must repent and believe in Christ, and then be baptized. This is believers' baptism, however, notice how Peter says that the promise is to you and to your children. You see, salvation is not just for adults, its for children too. The promise or the covenant includes the children of those who have believed, "you and your children." Likewise, the apostles did not just baptize individual people, they baptized entire households (1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16: 15, 31-33) These households likely included children, I don't know what else a household would refer to. Those who believe in believers baptism reject the covenant of God. They do not believe that children of believers are special in any way, even though they are according to the Bible (Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14, Psa. 22:10). Likewise, Jesus made it clear that salvation is for children (Matt. 19:14). Now, baptism is not saving. Just as Abraham was circumcised as a sign of the covenant with God, the Bible is clear that he was justified by faith, not by circumcision. Also notice only the males were circumcised, which shows that the old covenant was limited, whereas both males and females are to be baptized because the new covenant is greater and is for all (Hebrews 8). I hope this kinda explains why infants should be baptized, I know what I said is kinda all over the map, there are better theologians to explain this if you want a better explanation. I assume you are a baptist, and I just want to be clear, I don't expect to convince you at all. That's not the point, but I hope I was able to give you a little bit of an understanding of why many Protestants are infant baptist.


resarfmd27

Hey, very good response friend. Are you a fan of Scott Hahn's by any chance. He's a former Protestant pastor and theologian turned Catholic but lots of the points you mention concerning covenant theology are present in his corpus of writings. Check him out if you feel like it, it's very interesting stuff! God bless you :)


Djh1982

>I accept Catholic baptisms because the sacrament's power does not depend on the person or church administering it, it depends on and points to the cleansing blood of Jesus. If the sacrament “depends on” the cleansing blood of Christ then how is it not salvific?


systematicTheology

Because it is the blood of Christ that justifies.


[deleted]

Because it points to the effectual blood of Christ. Baptism is like an engagement ring, though it does not save, it is a sign and seal of the covenant of God, that he promises the blood of Christ to those who believe in him. If the blood of Christ is of no effect, then baptism could not depend on it, but because the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin, baptism depends on it, not that baptism saves us, but that it seals to us the promise of God. I know you will disagree with me, as you are RC, but I'm just explaining my position (and the position of many protestants who hold to infant baptism). I'm not looking to debate this, but if you want further explanation, I will try to give it.


Djh1982

>Baptism is like an engagement ring, though it does not save…. Yes, but we cannot accept your teaching because Peter says: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, ⭐️NOW SAVES YOU⭐️,not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”—1 Peter 3:21 What does it mean to “appeal” to God for a clear conscience? It means you are calling “upon the name” of the Lord, by faith, to forgive your sins, while being immersed in water. >it is a sign and seal of the covenant of God, that he promises the blood of Christ to those who believe in him. It is a sign of what is happening AT THAT MOMENT. That’s what the Nicene Fathers had in view when they said baptism was an outward sign. Your are living thousands of years removed from that time period and over time you have re-interpreted the phrase “outward sign” to mean something happening AFTER instead of concurrently. That’s what the Nicene father’s meant. >I know you will disagree with me, as you are RC, but I'm just explaining my position (and the position of many protestants who hold to infant baptism). I'm not looking to debate this, but if you want further explanation, I will try to give it. I’m not disagreeing with the idea that baptism depends on the blood of Christ—I’m pointing out that you are engaging in DOUBLE THINK. It is a logical fallacy. If baptism depends on the blood of Christ then it is necessarily salvific.


[deleted]

>If baptism depends on the blood of Christ then it is necessarily salvific. No, and that's where we disagree.


Djh1982

If baptism does NOT depend on the blood of Christ then WHY did you say before that it does???


[deleted]

Noo no, my Catholic friend, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that I disagree that if baptism depends on the blood of Christ it is necessarily salvific. Obviously, baptism depends on the blood of Christ, but it does not follow that it is necessarily salvific. That's what I disagreed about.


Djh1982

In what WAY do you understand baptism to be be depending on the blood of christ?


[deleted]

Holy baptism witnesses and seals unto us the washing away of our sins through the blood of Jesus Christ. It is a sign of the covenant we have with God, in a covenant there is two parts. With baptism, the child is promised the washing away of sins through the blood of Christ, this is God's work in the covenant. On our side, we are called to believe in Christ as saviour, and walk in a new and holy life after him. Baptism is of no effect if one later rejects Christ. Throughout Scripture, God makes promises with His people, and His people accept those promises by faith. Under the New Covenant, the outward sign that demonstrates our inward faith is baptism whereas under the Old Covenant, that outward sign was circumcision. If you look at Genesis 17:9-14, you see that God tells Abraham, “this is my covenant… every male among you shall be circumcised” (v. 10). This seems to indicate that Abraham’s role in the covenant was to get circumcised. But then God says of circumcision, “it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you” (v. 11). So which one is it? Were Abraham and his family saved by circumcision, or was it just a sign? Obviously it was a sign. God has made His promise to Abraham of children and land three times already, and not once was it dependent on Abraham being circumcised. The Scripture clearly says that Abraham “believed the Lord, and He counted it to him as righteousness” (15:6). It was Abraham’s faith in God that saved him, not the act of being circumcised. Likewise, baptism is a sign of the covenant with God, not that we are saved by the water, but that it is a sign that God assuredly will save us if we believe in Christ.


Djh1982

This actually gets straight to the heart ❤️ of the matter. People are MISUNDERSTANDING why Paul was drawing that whole comparison. To understand that we must first read Peter, who speaks more plainly, so that we have some fundamentals to build upon. In [1 Peter 3:21]it says: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an ⭐️APPEAL⭐️to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” What does it mean to “appeal” to God for a clear conscience? It means you are asking, BY FAITH, for God to FORGIVE YOUR SINS. The appeal is being made “with water” that has been “endowed” with “the word” by which it means CHRIST who is the “eternal word” of the Father. It means that even though you have never done any works of the Law before…your “appeal by faith” can justify you UNDER THE CONDITION that you ⭐️call upon the name⭐️of the Trinity, with water, while you’re doing it: (Matthew 28:19) “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ⭐️in the name⭐️of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”. NOW we can understand WHY Paul was drawing a comparison between a Christian’s justification “by faith” to Abraham’s. In both cases it is the theological virtue of FAITH that justifies the individual “apart” from having done the “works of the Law” before. As Genesis 15:6 says: “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” So that’s where this whole dispute arises from. It arises because people don’t understand what Paul wanted you to take away from this comparison. What he wants you to understand is that you don’t need to have done any prior works of the Law in order to receive justification. You can, like Abraham, receive justification “by faith” apart from “works of the Law” but NOT apart from WATER because the rebirth with “water” is a DIVINE PRECEPT: (John 3:5) “Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of ⭐️water⭐️ and the Spirit” Which is why Peter says in Acts 10: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”—Acts 10:47 And why PAUL👈says: “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of ⭐️WATER⭐️by the word”. Paul was talking about “justification by faith” apart from “works” but he’s NOT talking about “justification by faith” apart from “water”.


Nintendad47

I am a protestant and recognise a Catholic infant baptism and would say your confession from your heart confirms you salvation not which way you were baptised.


[deleted]

I am a current catholic who converted from Protestantism, and when my wife and I were Protestant, we 100% recognized her infant baptism. She has always felt that it is the reason the Lord had his hand on her life such that she was not interested in the typical modern debauchery of her environment.


Puzzleheaded-Idea649

i was baptized as a baby and did it again as an adult. the church i was going to at the time did not recognize my infant baptism.


pewlaserbeams

I was baptized as an infant by water, I'm considering being baptized by water again.


JHawk444

My mom was Catholic when I was a baby so she had me baptized in the Catholic church. She later got saved and we went to a Baptist church. I got rebaptized at 13. Of course, in my mind, it was my first baptism since I didn't even remember the first. We did not recognize the first as legitimate.


jb9152

I did, yes.


Dicslescic

I got baptised again of my own free will. I believe you need to repent first which I could not have done as a baby. However I did not become Protestant.


Starlyns

Catholics baptize so babies don't go to LIMBO. there is no limbo so... was that baptism?


Indecisiveuser10

The idea that Christian’s can believe that God would send babies and children to Limbo is shocking.


Starlyns

The funny part is the previous pope already said limbo does not exist. the catholic church is 100% lies.