Baptism


#1

The catholic church is so far off when it comes to baptism. I think scripture is very clear on the subject. First in the baptizing of infants and second baptizing by sprinkeling, The greek definition is to submerse or to emerse, ie under water. It is very symbolic of the death, burriel and reserection of Christ. Besides, It is the way Christ was baptized. If he is the example, i am to follow. I ate to say it but most catholic’s have not been baptized, therefore have not recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit. Read Math 7:13-14, it’s very scary. Don’t take the chance, do it the right way. Put your trust in the scriptures, not in man.


#2

[quote=oudave]The catholic church is so far off when it comes to baptism. I think scripture is very clear on the subject. First in the baptizing of infants and second baptizing by sprinkeling, The greek definition is to submerse or to emerse, ie under water. It is very symbolic of the death, burriel and reserection of Christ. Besides, It is the way Christ was baptized. If he is the example, i am to follow. I ate to say it but most catholic’s have not been baptized, therefore have not recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit. Read Math 7:13-14, it’s very scary. Don’t take the chance, do it the right way. Put your trust in the scriptures, not in man.
[/quote]

You sort of miss the idea however that the Sacramernts were entrusted by Christ to His Church. The Church cannot change the essential elements, for Baptism they are natural water and the specific words used in the Scriptures, with the intent of washing away Original Sin and making one a new person in Christ. It would be hard for me to accept your proposal that one such as St. Paul was not validly Baptized because he did not “go down to the river Jordan”. (Acts Ch 6) The manner in which the water is applied or the Language used to speak the words does not alter the validity.


#3

What is amazing is that Catholics constantly get accused of practicing superstitions, yet when it comes to a subject like this, our detractors act like they are reading out of the Necronomicon and making sure we don’t miss any aspect of the “spell” of baptism. Another inevitability when one has hitched his wagon to the un-Biblical and incoherent Bible-alone theory. :rolleyes:

Scott


#4

Oudave,
You are in error since you overlook such cases as the Philippian jailer who was baptised along with his whole household in the middle of the night after washing Paul’s wounds.

This implies that they were baptised with water that was present, since it nowhere states that they “went down to the river” in the middle of the night. And just exactly what did they do, there in that hot dusty middle eastern climate since pools and rivers weren’t everywhere and the Baptists hadn’t yet come along to invent their immersion tanks yet?

Also the very fact that they baptised the entire household says that there were likely infants included as well.

Further, “Ye do err” (to quote the scripture", in that St. Paul plainly compares baptism to circumcision. Now consider when Jews were circumcised. Eight days after birth, so there is the obvious precedent. Bear in mind also that God commanded them to do this, so it wasn’t something man-made now, was it?

You should also realize that the Jewish boy was circumcised on the profession of faith of his parents, since he wasn’t capable of such at that time, hence Catholic infant baptism is more scriptural than you think. The Jewish parents made a verbal promise to see that the child was raised in their faith and that is the very same commitment that Catholic parents do today.

Finally I would point out the weight of Christian historic evidence to you that you seem unfamiliar with since (from the context of your post and the lack of any info on your profile) you seem to be some kind of non-Catholic who has little knowlege of the 1500 years of history that predates the arrival of all the novel new doctrines that surfaced during the reformation that you need to look into the history of the early church (see newadvent.com/)

St Polycarp was a bishop in the very early church who was offered the option of denying his faith in order to spare his life. He was first threatened with being fed to wild animals and when that didn’t seem to impress him they threatened to burn him alive. His answer was “I have been a Christian for 85 years. Why would I deny my faith and exchange this temporary fire for an eternal one?” (emphasis mine). Polycarp was 85 years old when he was burned to death as he sang hymns of praise. He gave his life for the faith, and was very clearly baptised as an infant which tells you that it was the common practice even in the first 2 centuries of the Church.

I hope that this helps you see that you are wrong concerning the Catholic sacrament of Baptism (and very probably a great many other aspects of the Catholic faith).

For more info I would direct you to The Catechism of the Catholc Church which can be accessed here online (though I suggest that it will be the best $8.00 you ever spent to buy it and read it yourself) and to the very fine tracts on this topic here on the CA site. catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp This link will take you to that part of the site. Please have the courage to read them carefully before attacking our faith with another “I hate to say this” post, which I consider a very thinly veiled attempt to evangelize us. We are every bit as Christian as you or anyone else and (in fact) Catholicism predates EVERY other non-Catholic denomination out there, none of which are older than 487 years old and MOST substantially less. ALL of them were founded by MEN whostartedyourchurch.com/
You’ll find that some are less than 100 years old and more are spawned almost on a daily basis. There is much talk of them believing the Bible as the sole source of their beliefs, but every single one of them has a differing opinion of what the Bible teaches (take baptism just for an instance…Whew!). Yet they ALL claim to be led by the Holy Spirit…how can that be since they all get different interpretations of what God’s word really says ? With all that confusion, who is right? And who has the authority to say? What does the NT say is the source of confusion? It’s certainly NOT the Spirit of God, now is it?

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/cartoon44.gif


#5

Ironically, the first baptist parish began by John Smyth (1609), who baptized himself (where’s that in Scripture?), then baptized the others … by pouring. According to Baptist scholar William B. Lipphard, pouring was employed for baptism by these initial Baptists until 1641. (*Religions of America, *Rosten, L., Ed., revised edition, 1975, pg. 36).


#6

“But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash baptizo] before dinner.” They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So *baptizo *can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.”

[RIGHT]—Catholic Answers, “Baptism: Immersion Only?” (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2004)[/RIGHT]


#7

Wasn’t St. Paul baptized in a house standing up?

“And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, he saw again also presently, and having risen, was baptized, and having received nourishment, was strengthened” (Acts 9:18-19, Young’s Literal Translation).

The house must have been immersed in water. :rolleyes:


#8

[quote=oudave]The catholic church is so far off when it comes to baptism. I think scripture is very clear on the subject. First in the baptizing of infants and second baptizing by sprinkeling, The greek definition is to submerse or to emerse, ie under water. It is very symbolic of the death, burriel and reserection of Christ. Besides, It is the way Christ was baptized. If he is the example, i am to follow. I ate to say it but most catholic’s have not been baptized, therefore have not recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit. Read Math 7:13-14, it’s very scary. Don’t take the chance, do it the right way. Put your trust in the scriptures, not in man.
[/quote]

Do we Catholics baptize by “sprinkling”?

You know as much about the Scriptures as you do about Catholic baptism. You say that one can not recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit without baptism? How do you explain this:

While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word. The circumsized believers who had accompanied Peter were astouded that he gift of the Holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?” (Acts 10:44-47).

Please go back and study your bible some more.


#9

According to the Protestant scholar, M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., in his Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897.

The mode of baptism can in no way be determined from the Greek word rendered “baptize.” Baptists say that it means “to dip,” and nothing else. That is an incorrect view of the meaning of the word. It means both (1) to dip a thing into an element or liquid, and (2) to put an element or liquid over or on it. Nothing therefore as to the mode of baptism can be concluded from the mere word used. The word has a wide latitude of meaning, not only in the New Testament, but also in the LXX. Version of the Old Testament, where it is used of the ablutions and baptisms required by the Mosaic law. These were effected by immersion, and by affusion and sprinkling; and the same word, “washings” (Heb. 9:10, 13, 19, 21) or “baptisms,” designates them all. In the New Testament there cannot be found a single well-authenticated instance of the occurrence of the word where it necessarily means immersion. Moreover, none of the instances of baptism recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (2:38-41; 8:26-39; 9:17, 18; 22:12-16; 10:44-48; 16:32-34) favours the idea that it was by dipping the person baptized, or by immersion, while in some of them such a mode was highly improbable.

It seems to me this is just one of many things Protestants cannot agree upon. Perhaps if they could settle this among themselves, such polemics may be more convincing. :rolleyes:


#10

Although immersion in a river might be the preferred method of baptism, from the earliest days Christians have understood that it is not the only method to validly baptize:And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water *. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (Didache, Chapter 7, about A.D. 80)


#11

Oh all you Catholics above said it so well! I’ll just add my own personal opinion to expand on one point Church Millitant said.

If someone came to baptize my entire household, but wanted to exclude my baby, I would find that extremely offensive. Of course she’s a member of my family! Why wouldn’t God want her to be part of His family?

And if anyone reading this believes that Christians should only be baptised at some older age when they can reason, I have a question. (Not that I expect anyone to read my posts–I seem to have a knack for stopping the conversation.) Anyway my question for you non-Catholic, baptize adult-only Christians: WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS TO CHILDREN WHO DIE BEFORE THEY’RE ABLE TO ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOR? I mean, sometimes children die before the age of reason. Sometimes babies die. It’s very sad. Do you think God rejects them since they were never old enough to accept Him?


#12

[quote=itsjustdave1988]Ironically, the first baptist parish began by John Smyth (1609), who baptized himself (where’s that in Scripture?), then baptized the others … by pouring. According to Baptist scholar William B. Lipphard, pouring was employed for baptism by these initial Baptists until 1641. (*Religions of America, *Rosten, L., Ed., revised edition, 1975, pg. 36).
[/quote]

I’m not talking about what the baptist believe, they dont believe baptism is escential for salvation. I do. so please dont toss baptist doctrine at me, it wont stick. I believe what the scriptures say, so should you.
In Him, Dave.


#13

[quote=oudave]I’m not talking about what the baptist believe, they dont believe baptism is escential for salvation. I do. so please dont toss baptist doctrine at me, it wont stick. I believe what the scriptures say, so should you.
In Him, Dave.
[/quote]

Guess,what babtist believe what scripture says and guess who else does,methodists,evangelicals,presbytarians,church of Christ,the “watch tower group”,church of God in Christ,ect,…and it goes on and on.What is different about Catholics is we belive what scripture says and we also follow oral teaching which is also Biblical and we are the Church Jesus set up and we didn’t just start 500 years ago or less.God Bless


#14

[quote=gardenswithkids]Oh all you Catholics above said it so well! I’ll just add my own personal opinion to expand on one point Church Millitant said.

If someone came to baptize my entire household, but wanted to exclude my baby, I would find that extremely offensive. Of course she’s a member of my family! Why wouldn’t God want her to be part of His family?

And if anyone reading this believes that Christians should only be baptised at some older age when they can reason, I have a question. (Not that I expect anyone to read my posts–I seem to have a knack for stopping the conversation.) Anyway my question for you non-Catholic, baptize adult-only Christians: WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS TO CHILDREN WHO DIE BEFORE THEY’RE ABLE TO ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOR? I mean, sometimes children die before the age of reason. Sometimes babies die. It’s very sad. Do you think God rejects them since they were never old enough to accept Him?
[/quote]

No, God doesnt reject them. When you were 4 and broke your neighbors window did they arrest you for vandelism? No, because you were not of responsible age. Catholic always talk about baptism’s in the scriptures where there MIGHT NOT have been enough water, or that there MIGHT have been children in the house, the only problem is the scriptures dont say that. You must also remember that John came to Baptize a Baptism of repentence, pretty hard for a 8 day old to repent.PLEASE Read
Mat 3:11-17.
In Him, Dave. http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon11.gif


#15

Oudave: Please response to the various arguments above. There were a lot of good points made that you failed to acknowledge. (I apologize if you were planning to get to them later).


#16

[quote=oudave] You must also remember that John came to Baptize a Baptism of repentence, pretty hard for a 8 day old to repent.PLEASE Read
Mat 3:11-17.
In Him, Dave. http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon11.gif
[/quote]

i had some Q’s on baptism in another post,
but here i dont follow what you are saying from 13-17 Jesus was not here to repent.


#17

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]Guess,what babtist believe what scripture says and guess who else does,methodists,evangelicals,presbytarians,church of Christ,the “watch tower group”,church of God in Christ,ect,…and it goes on and on.What is different about Catholics is we belive what scripture says and we also follow oral teaching which is also Biblical and we are the Church Jesus set up and we didn’t just start 500 years ago or less.God Bless
[/quote]

The only problem is, is that the church ‘‘groups’’ that you have mentioned have changed the scriptures just like the catholic church has. Do you know that it wasnt until Nov 1, 1950 that pope pius XII declared the catholic church officially believed that Mary was taken to Heaven and did not die? scripture says that Enoch and Elijah were taken up to heaven. Now if Christs own Mother had been taken up as well, dont you think God would have told us through his word?
In Him, Dave.


#18

[quote=Catholic Dude]i had some Q’s on baptism in another post,
but here i dont follow what you are saying from 13-17 Jesus was not here to repent.
[/quote]

Im not saying Jesus had to repent, nor was he here to repent. There was a question on infant Baptism, my point was that infants are to young to repent. Infants are also to young to understand the commitment it takes to live as a Christian.


#19

[quote=oudave]The only problem is, is that the church ‘‘groups’’ that you have mentioned have changed the scriptures just like the catholic church has. Do you know that it wasnt until Nov 1, 1950 that pope pius XII declared the catholic church officially believed that Mary was taken to Heaven and did not die? scripture says that Enoch and Elijah were taken up to heaven. Now if Christs own Mother had been taken up as well, dont you think God would have told us through his word?
In Him, Dave.
[/quote]

His word also said that not every thing about Jesus was put into scripture. And no I do not think it would be neccesary for God to have an account of Mary assumed into heaven.It has been handed down orally,it is clear in scripture that you adhere to oral Tradition as well.On a side note,why would Mary being assumed into heaven bother you?I mean seriously,she gave birth to the second person of the Holy Trinity. Don’t you think on a practicle level that Jesus would take that into account?God Bless


#20

can you go into detail when you say that someone must
" …understand the commitment it takes to live as a Christian."

this is so open i dont know where to start. Read the whole Bible? Pray every day? turn 16? take theology?


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.