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.
You need to make more clear your understanding of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and explain why you think that the verses you quoted promote your view. We don't understand what you're talking about.linssue55 said:I absolutely disagree...you just won't see it, and this going around and around solves nothing. You take the verses for what you wish to believe, it is none of my buisness.
linssue55 said:This is common sense....it is like telling God the Holy Spirit.... "Your baptism by the Holy Spirit I am sure it worked God, but just in case, just to MAKE SURE, I did the water thingy too".
Sorry, but I am not into denying the work of God, like the work of baptism of the Holy Spirit is second rate, that would be total and complete arrogance of me, and Blasphemous, not to mention a sin. Sin of PRIDE...Gods number 1 biggest sin He detests in man.
linssue55 said:I absolutely disagree...you just won't see it, and this going around and around solves nothing. You take the verses for what you wish to believe, it is none of my buisness.
FreeinChrist said:That seems odd to me. ARe you in a very populated area?
I live in Phoenix area (suppose to be #5 in populatin in the US) and we associate with a number of nondenoms around us.
Veritas said:Scripture tells us that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". The Nicene Creed states that there is "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Even the Catholic and I believe Orthodox Churches accepts the baptism of Christian's entering their faith as valid. Of course, it must meet the trinitarian formula and the individual's prior faith must have a biblical/historical belief in what the Trinity means. Therefore, Mormon baptism is not accepted.
So why do Protestants routinely re-baptize Christian's when it's contrary to the bible?
Ainesis said:Are you saying that if a Protestant were to join the catholic church they would not be baptized into that church?
Actually, my question was not about Trinitarians and neither was the OP. The question is does the catholic church re-baptize Protestants? The answer is "Yes."Veritas said:Correct. We accept all Trinitarian baptisms.
New Advent said:Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration.
It does. However, perhaps you are a little to concrete in your answer. The catholic church does in fact re-baptize Protestants. So, in such times, do they also break God's commands?Veritas said:Upon entering the Catholic Church, a Protestant convert will receive other Sacraments such as Confirmation, first Eucharist, etc. Hope this helps.
One church we attended here had a habit of condemning books or Bible translations (they were KJ only) as "too Methodist". It took me 2 years and a trip to a play about John Wesley to convince one friend that Methodists are Christians and do not need to be saved or converted.
Ainesis said:Actually, my question was not about Trinitarians and neither was the OP. The question is does the catholic church re-baptize Protestants? The answer is "Yes."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VII
Does this mean that the catholic church is breaking God's commands in the same sense as posed in the OP?
It does. However, perhaps you are a little to concrete in your answer. The catholic church does in fact re-baptize Protestants. So, in such times, do they also break God's commands?
Yes, I did. I invite you to as well, for it goes to the heart of the matter.Veritas said:Did you read the entire passage from New Advent?
And yet, it goes on to say how it is "generally impossible" to determine whether a person had been properly baptized. That the "intention" of the administrator or the "mode" of administration can make it invalid. Even by the text you highlight, it is clear that the baptism is considered valid only if the administrator "intends" to convey what the church performs. How exactly do they determine the "intent" of the administrator? Again, as stated in the article, such is generally impossible.Veritas said:Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated."
I think the last statement pretty much answers your question. So now we know that IF a person's baptism can be determined to be invalid, then and only then are they re-baptized.
You know for a fact based on what? I know of others who have been. Nonetheless, it all begs the question. If in fact they do re-baptize, even in a minority of cases, are they then breaking God's commands?Veritas said:Heresy, ie Protestantism in and of itself is not the determining factor. Further, I know for a fact (and you can ask the numerous Protestant converts on OBOB whether they were re-baptized) that very few Protestant converts are re-baptized.
Yes, I see that. I just see no evidence in Scripture of a "conditional" baptism. Does this "condition" then mean that the church is not going against what God says when they re-baptize someone conditionally who has already been baptized into the faith?Veritas said:IF someone is re-baptized, you can see a caveat is added to the normal formula and it is referred to a "conditional" baptism.
Yes, which they also acknowledge as a general impossibility.Veritas said:So.....yes, if one is re-baptized unnecessarily, then the sacrament is repeated "sacrilegiously". Fortunately, the Church makes every effort to determine the validity of the initial baptism.
Set you up? Not at all. Perhpas you are taking things a little too personally?Veritas said:As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that you tried to set me up on this. What point did it serve?
Ainesis said:Set you up? Not at all. Perhpas you are taking things a little too personally?
The point, since you ask, is that the catholic church does exactly what the OP accuses Protestants of doing. Regardless of how rare you believe such to be and regardless of how much effort you believe the church goes through to validate a previous baptism, the bottom line is that they do re-baptize.
The catholic church reserves the right to rebaptize those who they feel may have been baptized invalidly before. Protestants reserve those same rights. If Protestants are wrong for doing so, then so is the catholic church.
Celticflower said:I am living in a well populated area of NE TN -- right in the "Bible Belt". This area's non-denoms seem to have a real problem with denominational churches. Many of the non-denoms call themselves "Christian" churches, so any church other than theirs is non-Christian, and some of the folks mean it literally. One church we attended here had a habit of condemning books or Bible translations (they were KJ only) as "too Methodist". It took me 2 years and a trip to a play about John Wesley to convince one friend that Methodists are Christians and do not need to be saved or converted.
Other than the disagreement about Baptism, I can't find fault with the teachings of the church we attend now. I just cannot be a member, teach a Sunday School class or be on a committee. I still hold membership in the Methodist Church in PA that we were at before the move south.
I'm glad to here you live in an area where the churches get along.
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?