Baptism by Pouring (New Apologetics Video)

My latest apologetics video is up. I used some new equipment in producing it, please let me know what you think:

Baptism by Pouring
youtube.com/watch?v=qThQu1T6B4Y&list=PLNA1NGi7SpXNfvtrppljEXRqo5hvYYfA9&index=12

I will probably watch it later. I was actually baptized by pouring. I could never figure why some of the folks that don’t believe baptism is needed insist it must be done by immersion.

I’m going to remember that point - thanks! I haven’t talked to anyone about baptism for a while, but I do remember people who insisted one HAD to be immersed, but that baptism itself did nothing. :shrug:

Good reference from Ezekiel that so many people miss. :thumbsup:

I recently had a discussion with a dear protestant family member on this…of course he claims immersion is the only acceptable form. So rather than take your approach(which is also very good) i tried to get common sense involved and told him to picture a different world than what he lived in…a world in which clean, running water didn’t exist in many places and that pouring or sprinkling was the only way we could baptize. Then I pointed him to the Didache which we believe to be authored by the apostles or those in their circle who tell us what is acceptable.

BAPTISM
This is how you should baptize:

Having recited all these things, [the first half of the Teaching, “The Way of Life and the Way of Death”] baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you do not have running water, then baptize in still water. The water should be cold, but if you do not have cold water, then use warm. If you have neither, then just pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Both the one who is baptized and the one who baptizes should fast beforehand, along with any others who are able, the one that is baptized being told to fast for a day or two.

So much of what the Catholic Church does actually emerged in a different era and those in this era have their modern glasses on and, therefore, cant see the forest from the trees.

Anyway, by doing this i gave him a snapshot of early Christianity that he had not previously considered.

That’s the incredibly ironic part…IT doesn’t matter…BUT WAIT…YOU ARE DOING IT ALL WRONG!!! :shrug:

Maybe someone who is commenting on this, can start a thread about why that is

Thank you, everyone, for your comments. Any suggestions for an apologetics topic for my next video? I do take suggestions. :slight_smile:

Just looked at your uploaded vids and see you have been at this for quite sometime. You actually started when youtube was ad-free!!! lol

In regards to apologetic topics, it really amazes me how many non-Catholics still subscribe to Petra/Petros argument. Easily refuted, yet I don’t see enough Catholics pushing the refutation out there on social media.

Great work dmar198!

I really enjoyed your video on pouring Baptisms and will use your information.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Suggestion for future video:

Prefigurements to Baptism.

Explain what typology is (CCC 113-117).

Begin with John 3 so the viewers know what you are going to look at the shadows of - Being “Born Again” with emphasis here in this post to the beginning (JOHN 3:1-6, 22).

Then as examples of prefigurements:

Spirit hovering over the waters in Genesis (and John echoing Genesis earlier - “In the Beginning”)

Noah and Spirit and Water in Genesis (and 1st Peter 3)

Moses and Spirit (cloud by day, fire by night) and water with the Red Sea (and 1st Corinthians 10).

Water and Spirit on the wood sacrifice with Elijah and the prophets of baal (and the “fire” is also likely a prefigurement of Confirmation there too).

Water flowing from the Right side of the Temple in Ez. 41 and 44 if I recall correctly.

All culminating in . . .

Water (with blood) flowing from the side of Christ immediately after He “breathes” His last and gives up His Spirit.

And even a final fulfillment in Revelation 22:17 in an eschatological sense.

Just something I’d like to see.

Liked the video.

Great points, especially the one about 3,000 people in one day. Even if you give them 12 hours to complete this baptism (which is WAAAY too much time, considering all the other events that had to happen first before the baptisms began) you still end up with needing to complete about 5 immersion baptisms EVERY MINUTE of EVERY HOUR for TWELVE HOURS straight! (That’s getting a new person into the water and baptizing them within 12 seconds, then getting them out and a new person in within 12 seconds, continuously for 12 hours).

There is simply NO pool big enough in Jerusalem at that time, or even today, to complete such a task. You would need a river or an olympic-sized pool (and even if there was such a pool, which there wasn’t, it would be controlled by the Romans and they wouldn’t let 3000 Jewish peasants swim around in their pool).

There is simply ZERO possibility that the baptisms at Pentecost were by immersion. ZERO.

PS to post 10.

From the Roman Catechism (The Easter Vigil readings in the Latin Rite will include some more of these typological examples but go beyond them too giving you even more ideas if you decide to do this subject)

Figures

The same was also signified by the Lord both by figures and by prophecies, as we know from Holy Scripture. According to the Prince of the Apostles in his first Epistle, the deluge which cleansed the world because the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil, was a figure and image of this water. To omit the cleansing of Naaman the Syrian, and the admirable virtue of the pool of Bethsaida, and many similar types, manifestly symbolic of this mystery, the passage through the Red Sea, according to St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians, was typical of this same water.

Prophecies

With regard to the predictions, the waters to which the Prophet Isaias so freely invites all that thirst, and those which Ezechiel in spirit saw issuing from the Temple, and also the fountain which Zachary foresaw, open to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: for the washing of the sinner, and of the unclean woman, were, no doubt, intended to indicate and express the salutary waters of Baptism.

You could even use satan as a likely hostile witness to Baptism and Confirmation in Mark 9:22 (Don’t overstate it as this part would be more of a “meditation” rather than “catechesis”. A lot of Catholics might not see this unless they meditate on the Sacraments. But this hostility to the Sacraments by satan is “likely” being made manifest here in Mark 9) possessing a boy and then in effect blaspheming the sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation by throwing the boy into water and fire!

MARK 9:14-29 14 And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd about them, and scribes arguing with them. 15 And immediately all the crowd, when they saw him, were greatly amazed, and ran up to him and greeted him. 16 And he asked them, “What are you discussing with them?” 17 And one of the crowd answered him, “Teacher, I brought my son to you, for he has a dumb spirit; 18 and wherever it seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to cast it out, and they were not able.” 19 And he answered them, “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me.” 20 And they brought the boy to him; and when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. 21 And Jesus asked his father, “How long has he had this?” And he said, “From childhood. 22 And it has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him; but if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us.” 23 And Jesus said to him, “If you can! All things are possible to him who believes.” 24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” 25 And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again.” 26 And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse; so that most of them said, “He is dead.” 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose. 28 And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?” 29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting.”

A likely blasphemous evil parody of Baptism (with the water) and the completion of Baptism—Confirmation (with the fire) using both to “destroy him” instead of using both to “save him”.

:bigyikes: That’s a lot! Maybe you should make some videos?

I want to make a video about this because it’s awesome material, but there is a factor to consider about the relationship between typology and apologetics. Typology is useful for apologetics. When I’m defending a particular doctrine, I have no problem using typology as one reason to believe in X, Y, or Z, but if I make a whole video about the prophetic symbols of baptism in the Old Testament I think I will have stepped out of apologetics and into theology proper. There’s nothing wrong with theology, of course, and that’s actually one of my majors, but my channel is “history and apologetics,” not “history and theology.” See what I mean?

Thanks! I have been at this for a while, and I actually made several videos back in 2006 and 2007 as well, but youtube was young then and my videos got deleted because they included copyrighted music. (It wouldn’t be a problem anymore, since youtube has agreements with music publishers now to allow that kind of thing.) Alas! I no longer have my older videos, but my best one was about Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’ll have to remake one about that topic someday, I suppose.

In regards to apologetic topics, it really amazes me how many non-Catholics still subscribe to Petra/Petros argument. Easily refuted, yet I don’t see enough Catholics pushing the refutation out there on social media.

Thank you for the suggestion, I will add it to my list. I think my next one will be about the title “Mother of God,” especially since that feast is in two days. I think I can make one about Petra/Petros pretty soon, though, maybe next week. I did briefly bring up the meanings of Petros and Petra in a recent video about the pope, but it wasn’t explicitly in response to protestant arguments on this subject. I’ll look forward to making one about that, thank you for the suggestion. Stay tuned!

Looking forward to it. :thumbsup:

Thank you

I want to make a video about this because it’s awesome material

Good. I can’t wait to see it.

Also I agree. Typology is “awesome” and a lot of fun. (I’ve really enjoyed Dr. Hahn’s material as well as Dr. Pitre in the typological realm)

I have no problem using typology as one reason to believe in X, Y, or Z, but if I make a whole video about the prophetic symbols of baptism in the Old Testament I think I will have stepped out of apologetics and into theology proper. There’s nothing wrong with theology, of course . . . .

True enough damr198.

Your videos are good enough where I know you are up to the task though.

Bible-only Christians are getting more and more into typology. Especially with Jesus (although not so much with Jesus in the Holy Eucharist).

Along with grace, as they teach themselves how to think in terms of typological application, especially if they can get some historical verification from some of their typological insights, I think there will be many more good things going on with them.

Here’s to you and your future videos which I am sure will be just as excellent as your past ones dmar198.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Typology. It can, with grace unveil many Truths. Especially for the Catholic who has the gifts and graces associated with the Sacraments (such as “the breaking of the Bread”).

LUKE 24:13-27, 32, 35 13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning 23 and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, **he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. . . . .32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” . . . .35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. **

OK dmar198.

I tried to help put some notes together for you for your video script:).

Hopefully this can save you some work (while at the same time I was dialoguing about this issue anyway so it was relatively easy for me to just write it our so others won’t have to repeat the work).

If interested they are:

here:
forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=14374079&postcount=140

here:
forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=14374087&postcount=141

and here:
forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=14374092&postcount=142

My latest apologetics video is up. I use the Bible to show that it is good to honor Mary with special reverence and veneration. Here’s the link:

lh5.googleusercontent.com/W8DbvVJp3m6vzE1y90s5t_vQVAx5t4PS3AhwwPAVxFze2qgu0aDxzrYaf9zu2cLukBosk0vJM81keBg=w1366-h654
Devotion to Mary
youtube.com/watch?v=y9lKJzJK0U0&index=13&list=PLNA1NGi7SpXNfvtrppljEXRqo5hvYYfA9

Please let me know what you think.

I hope to begin a video on Petros and Petra sometime this week. Perhaps I will be ready to publish it next week. After that, I hope to do one on precursors to Baptism in the Old Covenant, perhaps slated for the week following this one. Thank you, everyone, for your suggestions. I may have to stop making videos for a while on January 16th because my last semester begins at that time and I expect a heavy workload.

Good explanation on REV 12. I’ve had a hard time convincing non-Catholics that the woman is Mary…they insist it’s Israel or the Church but cant also be Mary.

In regards to John and Mary at the cross, that argument was not convincing to me until I found out who John’s biological mother was and that she was actually there at the cross. Her name is Salome and if you dig into the gospels it’s evident she was in fact there. So Jesus says “BEHOLD your MOTHER” right there in front of John’s biological mother. Well, that makes the whole idea of Jesus universally handing the blessed Mother to us, the Church, much more feasible. Because John obviously doesn’t need two moms and this would maybe be a tad insulting to say right there in front of his biological.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.