Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Being baptized in the Holy Spirit is a profound and transformative experience in the Christian faith. It refers to a spiritual event where a believer is filled with the Holy Spirit, empowering them for service, witness, and a deeper relationship with God. Here's a detailed look at what it means:It was/is a command, not a suggestion.
Of course a non Catholic would think this.
It was/is a command, not a suggestion. Tradition over-rode the command, but cannot change it.
We all have the choice whether to accept or reject the written word. And when taken in context, scripture does reveal baptisms were administered by immersion not sprinkling. It is the sum of God's word that reveals this truth.Ain't buyin' what your sellin'! Acts 9:18, Acts 22:16, Luke 11:38, and Mark 7:4 CLEARLY demonstrate not all baptisms administered in the NT are immersion. Strong confirmation bias here.
As for sprinkling and burial baptism.... Romans 6 has nothing to do with the administration of baptism.
Critical to how Credobaptists justify “immersion only baptism” is specifically the word “buried.” It is used only twice in the NT and only by Paul. Normally immersionists will use the word “picture” to describe “burial” as going under the water.” And from the analogy of the “picture” of burial, come to the conclusion of the mode of immersion baptism only.
“To bury” refers to any process in which we place human remains in their final resting place.
We have to make a distinction between modern western and ancient mid-eastern burial practices. In the ancient middle east, it was common for prominent people to be buried in a tomb. The Egyptian pharaohs were buried in their pyramids. Abraham was buried in a cave. King David was buried in a tomb in Jerusalem. John’s the Baptist body was “buried” in a tomb. The raising of Lazarus was from a tomb. And Jesus was buried a tomb.
Jesus was not buried in the ground and immersed with dirt. The women in the morning didn’t go to the tomb of Jesus with shovels, picks, and a wheel barrow to dig up the body of Jesus. This is not a picture of immersion baptism. When credo’s state this is a picture of immersion baptism, they are confusing modern burial practices with ancient burial practices.
A distinction must be made between what baptism accomplishes (Romans 6) and how baptism is to be administered (All the texts in the Book of Acts showing examples of baptism). Romans 6 is not a text on how to administer baptism.
The plain text rule is we are united with Christ death, burial, crucifixion, and resurrection in each of our baptisms. This is God’s action to us. It is the benefit that God gives us in baptism and gives us the result of all of Christ’s work ….the forgiveness of sins.
United with Christ is the result of baptism, not the mode of it. How water is applied to the human body is not specifically addressed anywhere in Romans 6.
All baptisms in the NT are descriptive. No prescriptive command like "Thus saith the Lord." My problem with Baptists and American Evangelicals is they take a descriptive text and turn it into a prescriptive text. A real no-no.And when taken in context, scripture does reveal baptisms were administered by immersion not sprinkling.
The Second Vatican Council is very controversial in Catholicism, with many [including myself] not accepting its decisions. Many hypotheses have been formulated to justify this position, e.g., the Thesis of Cassisicum or others. All Catholics accept the Council of Trent; but while Trent prohibited the sale of indulgences and other sins, the Church was thrown into confusion at the behest of the Napoleonic Wars, in which the Pope was imprisoned and his successors had to live under occupation until the Lateran Treaty in the 1910s. This, thus, is why the post-16th century was not a good time for the Church, as the authority of the Pope over the Papal States was broken, and the 'Prisoner of the Vatican' was ongoing.The Council of Trent prohibited the sale of indulgences, and other abuses which had prompted schism on the part of Luther, and likewise Vatican II created the basis for reception in both kinds, and vernacular liturgy, which were the main objections of the early Moravians. I was under the impression you supported these councils.
Baptizing infants, regardless of the mode issue, achieves nothing more than getting them wet. Baptism requires faith in Jesus, and a willingness to turn away from a sinful lifestyle something Infants are not capable of.Here you are mistaken: the tradition of baptism by immersion remains the norm, for infants and adults alike, in the Eastern Orthodox Church and other Eastern churches, but most recognize baptisms of other churches performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, including my infant baptism which was performed by aspersion in the United Methodist Church, since these comply with the command known as The Great Commission, in Matthew 28:19, from which infants are not exempted.
It is completely safe to baptize infants by immersion, and the majority of the 300 million members of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox community and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East were baptized as infants, by immersion. Immersion is not used only in situations where, for example, the person being baptized is connected to medical equipment that would preclude it. But for a healthy infant, there is no danger to baptism with three full immersions, which is the normal Orthodox procedure regardless of the age of the person being baptized.
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Paul said not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? (Romans 10:16-17)All baptisms in the NT are descriptive. No prescriptive command like "Thus saith the Lord." My problem with Baptists and American Evangelicals is they take a descriptive text and turn it into a prescriptive text. A real no-no.
There is no clear-cut command in the Bible as to how the Church is to perform a baptism, and anyone who asserts that there is such a command is not examining the text properly.
What would convince me to believe in immersion only baptism?
- Demonstrate a prescriptive command to immerse only.
- Demonstrate a prescriptive command not to sprinkle or pour.
According to Baptist theology....this is entirely correct. Baptists see NO PROMISES attached to baptism. Paedobaptists (Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Anglicans, RCC and the Orthodox) baptize infants because of the promises attached to baptism and see baptism as a remedy for original sin.Baptizing infants, regardless of the mode issue, achieves nothing more than getting them wet.
Ok. Not sure how this is a response to my post.The Council of Trent prohibited the sale of indulgences,
Luther should have followed the example of St Catherine of Sienna. Instead, he chose a path of destruction.and other abuses which had prompted schism on the part of Luther
It is controversial because many do not know what VII taught, they know what they have heard VII taught, which are 2 different things. So far, I have not come across anything from VII that changes what Trent taught.The Second Vatican Council is very controversial in Catholicism, with many [including myself] not accepting its decisions.
Baptizing infants, regardless of the mode issue, achieves nothing more than getting them wet. Baptism requires faith in Jesus, and a willingness to turn away from a sinful lifestyle something Infants are not capable of.
We all have the choice whether to accept or reject the written word. And when taken in context, scripture does reveal baptisms were administered by immersion not sprinkling. It is the sum of God's word that reveals this truth.
This is not the appropriate thread to speak on this, but I will provide one example of VII changing declarations from Trent. Speaking on the Liturgical changes specifically, Sacrosanctum Concilium #40 says, “However, in some places or in some situations, there may arise a pressing need for a more radical adaptation of the liturgy.” This is reputed by Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 13, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema.” Moreover, in Sacrosanctum Concilium #50: “Therefore the rites, in a way that carefully preserves what really matters, should become simpler. Duplications which have come in over the course of time should be discontinued, as should the less useful accretions.” This was reputed by Pope Pius VI' Auctorem fidei, #33, which said, “The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, ‘by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice…’” – Condemned as rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it. This would be an appropriate discussion in a separate thread, but you specifically mentioned that VII did not contradict Trent, and that is [with respect to you of courseIt is controversial because many do not know what VII taught, they know what they have heard VII taught, which are 2 different things. So far, I have not come across anything from VII that changes what Trent taught.
Boo!Instead, he chose a path of destruction.
Amen and Amen. Very concise.Why do you continue to add your own man made traditions to the word of God?
Here is what is required of us for Jesus to save us: be sinners. Because "here is a trustworthy saying worthy of full acceptance, Christ came to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners." (1 Timothy 1:15)
It is precisely because we are sinners that we need to be saved, saved from our sin and the disasterous eternal consequences of our sin.
If it were possible to turn away from our sin then we wouldn't need a Savior.
Faith comes from God, it is His gift, not something we do (Ephesians 2:8-9)
When an infant is baptized they receives the same gift and promise anyone else does. That is, faith.
For "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17)
and we have been washed "by the washing of water with the word" (Ephesians 5:26)
Whoever is washed in the waters of baptism receives the word of God, the very word which says "for the remission of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38); the same word that says "He saved us, not by righteous things we have done, but by His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5); the same word that says "for all of you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27).
God doesn't deny infants the life giving grace and mercy of His Son.
Jesus died for babies too. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever receives Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)
Notice that no where do the Scriptures say "but not infants". No exception is given. God's free gift of eternal life is for all sinners. Including the sinners who wear diapers.
-CryptoLutheran
I should have clarified my statement. I was referring to teachings, not liturgical rites or practices.This is not the appropriate thread to speak on this, but I will provide one example of VII changing declarations from Trent. Speaking on the Liturgical changes specifically, Sacrosanctum Concilium #40 says, “However, in some places or in some situations, there may arise a pressing need for a more radical adaptation of the liturgy.” This is reputed by Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 13, ex-cathedra: “If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema.” Moreover, in Sacrosanctum Concilium #50: “Therefore the rites, in a way that carefully preserves what really matters, should become simpler. Duplications which have come in over the course of time should be discontinued, as should the less useful accretions.” This was reputed by Pope Pius VI' Auctorem fidei, #33, which said, “The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, ‘by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice…’” – Condemned as rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it. This would be an appropriate discussion in a separate thread, but you specifically mentioned that VII did not contradict Trent, and that is [with respect to you of course] rather spurious.
Feelings are attached to emotions, and since your feelings are involved here, would that not make your response emotionally driven?I feel that this response is rather emotionally driven, and I want to apologize if I made you upset with anything I had said, I admit my previous response did seem rather forced, and if any ill intent was applied on it then it is my greatest of apologies, from the heart of a pacifist.
Once again, if we look at the facts, we won't see much difference, really.Though, in regard to what you stated, they were the founder of their own movement, not a successor of St. Peter, and thus given Apostolic Succession; there are many great and fine differences between these folks and the Papal Office.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?