OK, I asked this on the Catholci board, now its this baords turn. I know David and a few others see baptism as a nonessential, however, for those that do, or for those who woiudl answer, justa queastion.

Do you condsider Catolci baptosm valid?

How about Mormon?

If soemone was a Mormon, and Baptised as Mormon, could they, say, Join the chruhc of christ without benefit of a Chruch of christ Baptism? Likewise withthe Catholic.

Merely to start conversaton mind you.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 11, 2004

Answers

DUNK!!!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 11, 2004.

Dunk? LOL. Now there's another questions - dunk, sprinkle, pour - are these all valid? Only one or two, and why?

Mormon baptisms are invalid because they do not believe in the Trinity as Catholics understand. And of course, I think Catholic baptisms are valid ;)

Zarove, do you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation?

Also, any Church of Christ people (to my knowledge here that means Kevin and Luke), I am curious about something. I understand that you believe baptism is necessary, but do you have any equivalent doctrine to the "baptism by desire" that Catholics have? What would you say about this guy's eternal state if he were to die without baptism?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 11, 2004.

Emily,

You said,"Now there's another questions - dunk, sprinkle, pour - are these all valid?"

I believe that "dunk" is the biblical way, but what about for those who are not near any river or large body of water?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 11, 2004.

Emily said to Zarove,"Also, any Church of Christ people (to my knowledge here that means Kevin and Luke), I am curious about something. I understand that you believe baptism is necessary, but do you have any equivalent doctrine to the "baptism by desire" that Catholics have? What would you say about this guy's eternal state if he were to die without baptism? "

Sorry, the Churches of Christ don't have this "baptism by desire". If you don't get dipped, you get damned. You also have to believe your dip was for salvation, or you get damned. You also have to have your dip at a certain angle, or you get damned. You also have to have your dip at a certain time of day, or you get damned.

Ok, sorry, those last two were a lie, but that's how bad some neo-legalists Pelagians get. Zarove has not come out with his view of baptism on salvation, to my knowledge. I don't know if Zarove is in the COC anymore.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 11, 2004.

I beleive it is an important, but not 100% nessisary. It confirms one has repented, and regenerates ones life in Christ, as it allows one to be Born intot he Chruch family.

However, if soemone truely repents, and cannot be baptised, such as if semoen is n an automobile accedent, and is in ICU in critical condition, and repents most earnestly, his sins can be forgiven, even shoudk he de within a few short hours of that repentance of his wouinds, without ever havign been Baptised.

Nonetheless, I thik tjhat, for the continuatiin of the Christain life, and for entrance onto the chruch, this step is crucial, if fr no other reason than as a rite of passage, an important rtual which would show you as commited. However, I also like to think of a rebirth as well.

All that said, I do not have a fxed veiw of baptosm. I had heard all my life that i was required. Anglicans, Mormons, and Cahtolics all sya its required, as do soem Baptists and all Chruch f Christ. I had once asusmed all taught it weas reuired, and now know otherwise. I had not issued much thought on the matter.So, I don know my views, nor what I hld at the time. I am undecided. But still think it a vital part f vhristain life.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 11, 2004.

Zarove

do you agree that baptism can only ever be conferred once?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), August 12, 2004.

Yes and No...

For strters, you cna be dunked or sprinkled dozens of times...

Secodnrly, their are difeent baptisms. IE, if I had een a Mormon, and baptised, I woudl have to be rebaptised as a Catholic if I converted ot Cahtolsism. ( I asked ont he board.)

BUT, apparently, tey recognise protestant Baptostms...

I think, hwever, that once baptsed, even thguh you mechaniclaly CAN be baptised, their is no real need.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 12, 2004.

Jesus understands, in some instances and world regions, being fully buried with water is not possible. So, being partially buried with water (pouring, sprinkling) is acceptable... as the Didache mentions.

The Jewish conversion ceremony requires immersion - even for infants. This tradition has not changed over the many centuries - even before Christ arrived.

Jesus no doubt prefers that you be buried with water since this is the best and fullest symbol of being buried and rising again into a new world and new life. This was the practice of Jews then and still is today. It was a "given" then that baptism meant being fully buried in water.

Some today think Jesus has no preference. If you ask His opinion, though, He won't say, "Duh... I dunno.... Do whatever you think is best, man." Jesus definitely has an opinion on the matter. He wants to convey His Pesonal Message through Baptism and wants the best and clearest Symbol possible.

In baptism we are washed with water as a Living Symbol of Christ's forgiving grace towards us. It is not so much our work as it is Christ's very Word conveying to us the FACT that He accepts us 100% and that we are welcome in His Family and promised eternal life.

Most people think of Baptism as a work we do to appease God's wrath. Most are mistaken, but that doesn't change the meaning behind it. God's Word is true and valid even if it's not fully understood.

Forgiveness of past, present, and future sins is conveyed through Baptism.

I guess the question is whether ANY Baptism is valid or not...

Jesus asks that you be buried with water, however, He graciously makes exceptions and accepts modes that are less than perfect in situations where being fully buried with water is not feasible. (And yes, there are such situations.)

A Baptism that denies Christ's Identity obviously is not done in His Name, since His Name is His Identity - Lord Jesus Christ. A baptism that is not done in His Name is not valid - for example, the Jewish conversion baptisms today do not mention the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. There may be a conversion to Judaism there, but there is no conversion to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Mormons deny Jesus is the One Eternal Supreme Lord. They use the term, but deny it's meaning. Therefore, a Mormom baptism is not done in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. They deny the Identity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The churches under Rome could perform the ideal mode (immersion) if they wanted, just like the Orthodox churches have maintained from the start. However, history shows that the Roman churches are prone to change their traditions over time as a belief or practice gains popularity among the churches - depending on local customs etc.

Why pouring or sprinkling? Why don't we all just get a wet towel and touch our nose and call it baptism? (An extreme burn victim might require such a rare mode.) Why boil it down to the bare minimum? Why not go with the fullest expression? that is, being fully buried with water in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think it should be obvious to everyone's conscience that Jesus wants us to enter in and take a full bath... not just get wiped with a wet towel or have a teeny tiny little shower.

The mode will not damn you. It'll just frustrate the Lord. Disbelieving in God's Grace will damn you, though.

Anyway, all the churches that gather in Christ's Name should strive for the fullest expression of this Living Symbol, though... not just settle for the bare minimum requirements.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 14, 2004.

Max, you said:

The churches under Rome could perform the ideal mode (immersion) if they wanted, just like the Orthodox churches have maintained from the start. However, history shows that the Roman churches are prone to change their traditions over time as a belief or practice gains popularity among the churches - depending on local customs etc.

Most new Catholic churches in the US are being built with a pool for immersion baptisms and that is now supposed to be the norm, to my understanding. Of course, all sprinkling and pouring are still valid. I think the local bishops have a big say in this.

I haven't seen it brought up yet, but I wanted to point out the Catholic church recognizes all baptisms (whether performed by a Catholic priest or not), as long as it was performed with water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with the intention to baptise into Christ for the remission of all sin. As a side note, the Catholic Church recognizes as "sacramental" the marriage between two baptised persons who are not Catholic.

A friend of mine who converted to a Baptist church had to get rebaptized because they didn't recognize the Catholic baptism he received as an infant. It's all based on what a church believes that baptism does and how it should be done I guess.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 14, 2004.

The reason that a non-Catholic church like the Baptists require that a person be baptised again is because baptism is a personal decision-- a recognition and acceptance of Christ. This is something that an infant cannot do. Baptism in the Bible is about a person being born again into Christ (spiritual experience). This miraculous rebirth is then celebrated by the symbolic full-body immersion into water.

This is how it was done in Jesus day. We see adults being baptised *after* they first believed and receive Christ. We never see any examples of infant baptism in the Bible.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 14, 2004.

>We never see any examples of infant baptism in the Bible.<

That doesn't prove anything. We don't see examples of early Christians (other than the last supper) drinking wine during communion, either. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. People who base their "anti-infant doctrine" on the basis of "no example" in scripture have a bias since there's also no example of infants being turned away from Baptism. Since the Bible says nothing specifically on the matter, we must look at tradition for an example.

Jews still baptize Gentile infants and adults to this day as a religious conversion ceremony. You can't be considered a Jew until after it happens. We can be sure that Paul and Jesus were very familiar with this infant baptism ritual in Judaism.

An infant is assumed to have faith, is assumed into the Church, and given the Sacrament to mark him as a forgiven child of God. What are you if you are not a forgiven child of God? You're simply a stranger or merely an observer and you are treated as such.

Do you disciple your children and teach them they are children of God and treat them as part of the Church, Christ's Body? Do your children sing songs of praise to Jesus, calling him Lord, but you forbid them to be baptized into Christ? It's truly one horrible error that frustrates the Spirit of Christ in that child's life.

Kids who grow up in this sort of church, when they are finally baptized, they look at baptism as more of a religious accomplishment rather than entrance into Christ's Body. If they've been a member of Christ's Body since they were children, this must just be an empty sign, not an actual initiation ceremony as it's repeatedly and clearly stated in scripture. It drains the significance out of baptism... no pun intended. ha. ok, not funny...

The biggest proof for infant baptism being valid is that there was no question about it for many years in the early church.

The first time that infant baptism even became an issue was when one Bishop was under the impression that baptism only cleanses the conscience of past sins, not future sins as well. People were prolonging their baptisms until just before they died to ensure they wouldn't "dirty" their souls after being forgiven in Baptism. One Bishop suggested that infants wait until they get older to be baptized so that the sins they commit during childhood can be cleansed.

If this was the first real question to infant baptism, this only proves that the norm in the earliest church was that infants were baptized. The tradition of the Apostles was not abandoned as quickly as many today like to believe.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 15, 2004.

Since the Bible says nothing specifically on the matter, we must look at tradition for an example.

Baptism is something we choose for ourselves--as also exampled in the Scriptures. Couple that fact., [that infants are unable to choose Christ for themselves] with the fact that we do not see infant baptism in the Scriptures and now you have at least two reasons to reject such a practice.

The only reason babies were baptised came from the Catholic notion that the ritual saves...and they feared that their new babies would go to hell if they weren't baptised.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 15, 2004.

Faith,

here is an excellent article on this subject.

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Infant_Baptism.html

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

Footnote 9 agrees with what Max mentioned about the Early Church:

In fact, infant baptism has been the practice of the historic Christian church since the Apostolic period.9

Note 9:

W. Wall, The History of Infant Baptism (London, 1705). Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, trans. David Cairns (Philadelphia: 1960) and The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study (Naperville: 1963) defends a paedobaptist reading of ancient church practice. For a Baptist reading see Kurt Aland, Did The Early Church Baptize Infants? trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray (London: 1963).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

Interesting, David.

My Calvin friend from my other board would not agree that you need to be baptised to be saved., at least--not in the ritualistic sense.

We agree that the saving baptism is spiritual and happens in the heart the moment one believes and places their faith in Christ...

Yet at the same time--he believes that one cannot have faith unless regenerated by God first.

So I'll ask you the same thing I ask him--and he never answers me:

Are you saved by faith or by God's regeneration?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 15, 2004.

Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

"Are you saved by faith or by God's regeneration?"

I don't think you can seperate both...I will look more into this, as I am busy responding to someone on another thread.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.