Do Protestant churches accept Catholic baptism as valid?

[Kirsten]

Well, I don't know anyone who thinks he's doing THAT when he has his child baptized.

This ^ is more of an old wives tale told among people who belong to churches that don't baptize infants.

What do you think people think they are doing when they 'baptize' an infant?

 

[Albion]

Not according to the actual quote of the article.

Wrong.

Again -- your speculation is in error.

There was no "speculation."

How does your response fit in with the facts given above??

It is in complete agreement.

I'm sorry if I haven't been able to get through to you about the facts of the matter, but pounding the keyboard and insisting to me that you're right won't change anything.

 

[Albion]

What do you think people think they are doing when they 'baptize' an infant?

???
You already replied to my post #51 where I answered that.

 

[Kirsten]

???
You already replied to my post #51 where I answered that.

What use is it to be an 'official member' of a church? You may as well be a Pharisee. Being a member of a church does not salvation make.

 

[Albion]

What use is it to be an 'official member' of a church? You may as well be a Pharisee. Being a member of a church does not salvation make.

I said "His church." I was not speaking of getting a membership card for your kid in the local congregation of some denomination. In fact, in most churches that practice infant baptism, you don't get to be considered a voting member of the congregation until you're in your late teens anyway.

 

[Kirsten]

I said "His church." I was not speaking of getting a membership card for your kid in the local congregation of some denomination. In fact, in most churches that practice infant baptism, you don't get to be considered a voting member of the congregation until you're in your late teens anyway.

Baptizing an infant does not make them a member of His chuch, The church, the body of born-again believers. Personally I believe that if an infant dies they go to heaven anyway becasue they are not of an age where they can repent. Until one is able to repent, they aren't likely held accountable. However, the bible is silent on the issue so we probably should be as well.

 

[Albion]

Baptizing an infant does not make them a member of His chuch

You can take that view, of course, but I was simply telling you what the majority of Christians believe.

You asked, "What do you think people think they are doing when they 'baptize' an infant?"
That (among other things) is the answer.

There's no point in telling me that you have a different belief. We already knew that.

Personally I believe that if an infant dies they go to heaven anyway because they are not of an age where they can repent.

Many other Christians agree with you there, but by the same token this doesn't mean that baptizing an infant is of no value whatsoever.

 

[Kirsten]

You can take that view, of course, but I was simply telling you what the majority of Christians believe.

You asked, "What do you think people think they are doing when they 'baptize' an infant?"
That (among other things) is the answer.

There's no point in telling me that you have a different belief. We already knew that.


Many other Christians agree with you there, but by the same token this doesn't mean that baptizing an infant is of no value whatsoever.

We actually do know that baptizing an infant has no value because baptism proceeds repentance. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance.

 

[Albion]

We actually do know that baptizing an infant has no value because baptism proceeds repentance. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance.

If we happen to be Baptists, we probably would say that, yes. Most of us are not.

Most Christians believe as I explained. You asked the question about them, after all, and I simply gave you the answer. I didn't think it was an invitation to debate the matter.

 

[Kirsten]

If we happen to be Baptists, we probably would say that, yes. Most of us are not.

Most Christians believe as I explained. You asked the question about them, after all, and I simply gave you the answer. I didn't think it was an invitation to debate the matter.

Error should always be corrected. I don't agree that 'most' Christians believe it. That is also a matter for debate. You aren't oblidged to continue to respond to me.

 

[Albion]

Error should always be corrected. I don't agree that 'most' Christians believe it. That is also a matter for debate. You aren't oblidged to continue to respond to me.

There's no debating the membership statistics and who believes what. Of course, you will believe what you want to believe about this, as you said.

When you consider the numbers of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Reformed churches, and many others, however, there's really almost no opposition to infant baptism among them and certainly no question about the official stances of those church bodies which include the huge majority of Christians.

 

[Kirsten]

There's no debating the membership statistics and who believes what. Of course, you will believe what you want to believe about this, as you said.

When you consider the numbers of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Reformed churches, and many others, however, there's really almost no opposition to infant baptism among them and certainly no question about the official stances of those church bodies which include the huge majority of Christians.

Those stances are based on extra-biblical beliefs, not based on Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

I was correct.

Not according to the actual quote of the article.

All the SDAs in the world don't exceed the number of Baptists who belong to just the Southern Baptist Convention, in fact.

Again -- your speculation is in error. The Christianity Today article is correct especially if you compare the SBC world wide to the SDA church world wide. It is simply fact.

Oh yes.

You can read it--and comment on it--to your advantage, but the article's wording completely bears out what I explained (and you haven't even tried to rebut).

How does your response fit in with the facts given above?? Your statement was observably false.

For 1998 the SBC reported a decline of 1.02%, or 162,158 members, giving the denomination a world total of 15,729,356 members (almost all in the U.S.).
The SBC reported weekly attendance averaging 5,398,692 for 1998. The actual number of resident members in 1998 was 10.7 million. (Source: "Any way you count it, fewer Southern Baptists" by Cary McMullen, Palatka Daily News, Florida.) The SBC reported a slight membership gain for 1999, but total membership (15,851,756) was still lower than previous levels.

[Source: Associated Press, "Southern Baptists tallied a membership gain in 1999", 15 April 2000; URL: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,160007426,00.html?]

"over 16 million members."

Annual
of the 2013
Southern Baptist Convention

What difference is the church making during these perilous times?
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I need to get a little bit more specific about this question.
I’m not asking what difference the Methodist church is making about this lostness;
I’m not asking what difference the Lutheran church is making about this lostness;
I’m not asking what difference the Catholic church is making about this lostness;
I’m not asking what difference the Assembly of God church is making about this lostness;
I’m not asking what difference the Presbyterian church is making about this lostness;
I’m not asking what difference the Full Gospel church is making about this lostness;
I’m not asking what difference COGIC churches are making about this lostness.
Brothers and sisters, I cannot speak for any of those churches. I cannot speak for any of
those denominations. However, I just happen to be the president of the largest protestant
denomination in the world! I just happen to be the president of the largest protestant
denomination in America! I just happen to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention!
SO I CAN speak for this Convention!!
A Convention made up of over 16 million members.
A Convention made up of over 45,000 churches.
A Convention made up of 6 of the best seminaries in the world.
A Convention made up of some of the best colleges and universities in the world
http://www.sbcec.org/bor/2013/2013SBCAnnual.pdf

Wrong.

There was no "speculation."

It is in complete agreement.
I'm sorry if I haven't been able to get through to you about the facts of the matter, but pounding the keyboard and insisting to me that you're right won't change anything.

I have posted facts in my statement above - you have not posted anything to contradict except your preference.

I gave your explicit example claim - a chance - I gave you the latest stats on that claim - and your speculation turned out to be in correct.

By contrast - the Christianity Today article is correct.

You have free will - you can choose as you wish.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There's no debating the membership statistics and who believes what. Of course, you will believe what you want to believe about this, as you said.

When you consider the numbers of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Reformed churches, and many others, however, there's really almost no opposition to infant baptism among them and certainly no question about the official stances of those church bodies which include the huge majority of Christians.

Except for the 5th largest denomination in the world - and all the Baptists no matter their divisions - and of course -- the Bible.

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68272419, member: 235244"]1. In Romans 6 the symbol is stated to be that of death burial and resurrection - only full water baptism does that.
2. In the Gospels "and coming up out of the water" Jesus was baptized by John and I know of no actual denomination that thinks John "sprinkled rose pedals on Jesus".
3. 1 Peter 3 makes it clear that Baptism must include the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" not even possible for infants.
4. Acts 2 makes it clear that repentance is a prerequisite for baptism - not even possible for infants.
5. Even the RCC admits that there were times when the early church found no reason at all for baptism of infants. It did nothing.
6. The value of infant baptism requires the imagined powers/holy water/magic-sacrament idea that something the priest or the water does - makes a change in the infant outside of any choice to accept Christ, or repent, or appeal for forgiveness... A foundational concept to the practice with not a hint of justification in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob[/QUOTE]

 

[Kirsten]

Except for the 5th largest denomination in the world - and all the Baptists no matter their divisions - and of course -- the Bible.

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68272419, member: 235244"]1. In Romans 6 the symbol is stated to be that of death burial and resurrection - only full water baptism does that.
2. In the Gospels "and coming up out of the water" Jesus was baptized by John and I know of no actual denomination that thinks John "sprinkled rose pedals on Jesus".
3. 1 Peter 3 makes it clear that Baptism must include the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" not even possible for infants.
4. Acts 2 makes it clear that repentance is a prerequisite for baptism - not even possible for infants.
5. Even the RCC admits that there were times when the early church found no reason at all for baptism of infants. It did nothing.
6. The value of infant baptism requires the imagined powers/holy water/magic-sacrament idea that something the priest or the water does - makes a change in the infant outside of any choice to accept Christ, or repent, or appeal for forgiveness... A foundational concept to the practice with not a hint of justification in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

[/QUOTE]

Not to mention the huge amount of non-denominational Christians which likely have not even been counted.

 

[BobRyan]

Not to mention the huge amount of non-denominational Christians which likely have not even been counted.

They have been counted at adherents.com and it is a large number - but I don't know how many of them are for infant baptism. My guess is that a lot are not but can't claim that whole number

 

[Root of Jesse]

If there is no scriptural evidence for immersion(I'm not making the argument, just raising a question), why would be used in "very many cases" in the Catholic churches?

We believe that the only requirement is living water. If water is plentiful, then immersion is preferred. If water is not, or there's no place to put a pool in the sanctuary, then sprinkling is ok.

The Scriptural element, I will maintain, is when Peter baptized 5000 in Jerusalem. Where did the immerse all those people (more than 5000, because it was 5000 men and their households)? 5000 + people immersed would pollute the potable water supply in Jerusalem...

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'd be amazed if they did accept it, since it's essentially a baptism from a separate religion.

So we're a separate religion then? Whence cometh yours? (Answer: Branched from Catholicism...)

 

[Root of Jesse]

Root of Jesse: You asked a question and have gotten several answers. But all you've done is bemoan their responses.

Nope. I'm wondering at the reasoning. Those that do accept it, fine, I believe, as it should be. FYI I would bet that those that do understand baptism to be an indelible mark on the soul. I'm not bemoaning anything. I'm wondering at the whys. I mean Protestants disparage that we call Protestants "separated" bretheren (though bretheren nonetheless), but then they don't seem to accept us as Christian at all!

 

[Root of Jesse]

It actually is not used in very many cases, but I suppose that depends on what any of us would consider to be "very many."

But as to why it would be used at all in the Catholic churches, it's because the RCC and most other denominations do not consider immersion to be wrong. It's just not obligatory. If they considered immersion wrong to do, that would be different.

These churches consider the baptism to be valid so long as water and the Trinitarian formula are used.

That would be wrong. I'd say greater than 60% of Catholic Churches immerse those being baptized. In my diocese, 50 of 83 parishes have an immersion pool. For infants, they place the child in the water, then pour water over the child's head.