Baptism

[Jonaitis]

Let's debate about this subject, how about it?

Element: Do you believe baptism should be performed only with water?

Formula: Do you believe baptism should be performed only in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Mode: Do you believe baptism should be performed only by immersion?

Recipient: Do you believe baptism should be performed only to believers?

And finally, do you believe baptism should be performed only by an ordained minister?

 

[Ghostjunkie]

Element--Yes (Jesus baptized with "fire" metaphorically)
Formula--No (there is scripture saying f/s/hs and in the name of Jesus)
Mode--Yes (there is no scripture to support the catholic version)
Recipient--Yes (there is no point to baptize a non-believer, you cannot save what has no eternal life)
Ordained--I am not sure on this one.

Essentially, do not alter the instructions given by our Lord. The arrogance of the one who thinks they can smh.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Element: Do you believe baptism should be performed only with water?

As opposed to what, milk? Yes, water is the preferred medium.

Formula: Do you believe baptism should be performed only in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

I assume you mean, and no fewer. I can't think of any names I would want to add to it (no other gods, namely), and I see no reason to remove any.

Mode: Do you believe baptism should be performed only by immersion?

When feasible. Contrary to popular thought, a baby can actually be immersed. Even hydrophobic people can be immersed...albeit with a few restraining devices.

Recipient: Do you believe baptism should be performed only to believers?

Nonbelievers do it, too, but they call it a bath. That's all it really is when nonbelievers do it.

And finally, do you believe baptism should be performed only by an ordained minister?

Where available. Ultimately, the only ordained minister with the right to perform a baptism is Christ, himself. Wherever Christ is present, a baptism may proceed.

 

[Jonaitis]

As opposed to what, milk? Yes, water is the preferred medium.



I assume you mean, and no fewer. I can't think of any names I would want to add to it (no other gods, namely), and I see no reason to remove any.



When feasible. Contrary to popular thought, a baby can actually be immersed. Even hydrophobic people can be immersed...albeit with a few restraining devices.



Nonbelievers do it, too, but they call it a bath. That's all it really is when nonbelievers do it.



Where available. Ultimately, the only ordained minister with the right to perform a baptism is Christ, himself. Wherever Christ is present, a baptism may proceed.

You're my favorite CF member on this site.

I wish I could give a "winner" and a laugh reaction.

 

[redleghunter]

As opposed to what, milk? Yes, water is the preferred medium.

 

[redleghunter]

Your my favorite CF member on this site.

I wish I could give a "Winner" and a laugh reaction.

Don’t worry. I gave him the “winner” rating which was well deserved.

lol milk.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Element--Yes (Jesus baptized with "fire" metaphorically)
Formula--No (there is scripture saying f/s/hs and in the name of Jesus)
Mode--Yes (there is no scripture to support the catholic version)
Recipient--Yes (there is no point to baptize a non-believer, you cannot save what has no eternal life)
Ordained--I am not sure on this one.

Essentially, do not alter the instructions given by our Lord. The arrogance of the one who thinks they can smh.

Just what do you mean by "the catholic version"? Not all Catholics are Roman ones, or did you know that?

Melkite and most other Eastern Catholics--as well as ALL the Eastern Pre-reformation churches--baptize by Triple Immerson and emersion under normal circumstances.

Under normal circumstances, baptism is normally administered by an ordained Deacon or Priest. In an emergency--which means in imminent danger of death--any baptized person may.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Element--Yes (Jesus baptized with "fire" metaphorically)
Formula--No (there is scripture saying f/s/hs and in the name of Jesus)
Mode--Yes (there is no scripture to support the catholic version)
Recipient--Yes (there is no point to baptize a non-believer, you cannot save what has no eternal life)
Ordained--I am not sure on this one.

Essentially, do not alter the instructions given by our Lord. The arrogance of the one who thinks they can smh.

None of the Apostles were ordained ministers, neither was Philip who baptised the Ethiopian Eunuch. It is the state of the heart that is more important than the elements of the process. Any person can baptise a new believer, in the bath, in church, in a river, or a swimming pool. Makes no difference to a believer who loves the Lord in his heart.

 

[Not David]

Let's debate about this subject, how about it?

Element: Do you believe baptism should be performed only with water?

Formula: Do you believe baptism should be performed only in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Mode: Do you believe baptism should be performed only by immersion?

Recipient: Do you believe baptism should be performed only to believers?

And finally, do you believe baptism should be performed only by an ordained minister?

With Holy Water

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Just what do you mean by "the catholic version"? Not all Catholics are Roman ones, or did you know that?

Melkite and most other Eastern Catholics--as well as ALL the Eastern Pre-reformation churches--baptize by Triple Immerson and emersion under normal circumstances.

Under normal circumstances, baptism is normally administered by an ordained Deacon or Priest. In an emergency--which means in imminent danger of death--any baptized person may.

If baptism is taught as being essential to salvation, then it is not part of the gospel that Paul preached, but is a false gospel that brings a curse and condemnation because it is a gospel of faith plus works instead of faith in Christ alone.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

With Holy Water

Does that mean that someone has to boil the hell out of it first?

 

[Jonaitis]

None of the Apostles were ordained ministers, neither was Philip who baptised the Ethiopian Eunuch. It is the state of the heart that is more important than the elements of the process. Any person can baptise a new believer, in the bath, in church, in a river, or a swimming pool. Makes no difference to a believer who loves the Lord in his heart.

Oscarr, wouldn't you say the apostles were ordained by the Lord, and Philip ordained by the apostles? I have never read anywhere in Scripture that a layperson baptized anyone, unless it was on behalf of the minister.

 

[Jonaitis]

With Holy Water

What happens to the "holy water" after it has been used?

 

[Jonaitis]

If baptism is taught as being essential to salvation, then it is not part of the gospel that Paul preached, but is a false gospel that brings a curse and condemnation because it is a gospel of faith plus works instead of faith in Christ alone.

It depends on what they mean though. I do not know what Eastern Catholics differ on with the West, but Lutherans do believe in a kind of baptismal regeneration while affirming we are saved apart from our works. I heard it explained in detail years ago, but I can't remember now how that works in their theology.

 

[Not David]

What happens to the "holy water" after it has been used?

It is throw to the natural ground.

 

[Jonaitis]

It is throw to the natural ground.

What is the point of sanctifying the water?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oscarr, wouldn't you say the apostles were ordained by the Lord, and Philip ordained by the apostles? I have never read anywhere in Scripture that a layperson baptized anyone, unless it was on behalf of the minister.

The early church was not formalised like our modern churches, though it probably was recognised that the church elders were the ones given the role of baptising new believers. In the early church there were not clergy, and therefore no distinction between them and "laypeople". Every believer was equal in status to all the others, including the elders of the church. The Scripture says that every believer is a king and priest before God. God does not have "laypeople". He only has kings and priests.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It depends on what they mean though. I do not know what Eastern Catholics differ on with the West, but Lutherans do believe in a kind of baptismal regeneration while affirming we are saved apart from our works. I heard it explained in detail years ago, but I can't remember now how that works in their theology.

Baptism for regeneration is a work that is a corruption of the true gospel. Paul wrote the book of Galatians to totally refute faith plus works (of any kind) for salvation. So those who are teaching baptism for regeneration are demeaning the finished work of Christ by adding something that man has to do to it. Therefore it is a blasphemy that brings the curse of God and condemnation.

 

[Jonaitis]

The early church was not formalised like our modern churches, though it probably was recognised that the church elders were the ones given the role of baptising new believers. In the early church there were not clergy, and therefore no distinction between them and "laypeople". Every believer was equal in status to all the others, including the elders of the church. The Scripture says that every believer is a king and priest before God. God does not have "laypeople". He only has kings and priests.

"And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." - Acts 14:21-23

I would have agreed with you if you had said that ordaining ministers may have been done differently in the early church.

 

[Jonaitis]

Baptism for regeneration is a work that is a corruption of the true gospel. Paul wrote the book of Galatians to totally refute faith plus works (of any kind) for salvation. So those who are teaching baptism for regeneration are demeaning the finished work of Christ by adding something that man has to do to it. Therefore it is a blasphemy that brings the curse of God and condemnation.

I would want to say the same thing, that baptismal regeneration is heresy, but it is not as clear cut as we think it is in some of these denominations that hold to this idea. I'll have to study again what they hold to, as should you, to the meaning of their sacramental practice before making such quick pronouncements. They are our brothers.