The importance of Baptism?

[thessalonian]

Ok, we don't agree about baptism. Prots and Catholics that is. Fine. But something is wrong here. I was thinking about this on the way to work this morning. I listen to two Protestant stations and almost never hear baptism mentioned by any of the preachers from one month to the next. If I do it is about how baptism doesn't save anyone (so much for Peter's words, "baptism now saves you".". Nobody every recommends that someone who wants to become a Christian get baptized. They have people call in and get them to a point where they are ready to accept Jesus. No mention of one of the steps about coming in to the Church being baptized. Here's my problem.

Baptism and Baptized are mentioned 87 times in the New testament and alluded to many more (included John 3, born of water and spirit). Jesus starts out his ministry getting baptized. On Pentecost Peter responds to the Jew's question, "what must we do?" REPENT and GET BAPTIZED!!!!. 3000 of them do it. Every single convert in the NT get's baptized. Surely everyone can see forshadowing of baptism in the stories of naaman who was cleansed of his leporsy by dipping SEVEN (God) times in the JORDAN. Ring a bell. Hey isn't that where Jesus got baptized. Surely everyone can see baptism in the crossing of the Jordan in to the promised land and the Peter directly refers to the saving of Noah through the waters with regard to Noah's Ark. There is something in Eziekiel about being made clean by the sprinking of water. I think it is in Chapter 36. I can look it up if anyone wants me to. And there is more. So why is it that I almost never hear any of these Protestant radio preachers talking about baptism?? Very odd.

God bless

[popestpiusx]

Because they can't figure out how to reconcile the necessity of Baptism with their belief that man's works have no supernatural merit. They see baptism as a work, and therefore, not necessary for salvation.

[conservativecatholic]

Pspx is right. Protestants view baptism as a work. And as a result of the strange Protestant belief on justification, they believe that baptism is not at all necessary for salvation. Preachers don't preach about it because it's simply not a requirement for heaven. In fact, when a baptism does occur, it usually takes place in a fellow "churchman's" bathtub. Quite different than our baptistry. lol. God, it's great to be Catholic!

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]God, it's great to be Catholic![/quote]

I second that wholeheartedly.

[thessalonian]

The funny thing also is that they will come over to these boards and club us over the head with the Bible saying "IT HAS TO BE BY IMMMERSION!". But it doesn't really matter anyway.

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 24 2004, 09:12 AM'] The funny thing also is that they will come over to these boards and club us over the head with the Bible saying "IT HAS TO BE BY IMMMERSION!".  But it doesn't really matter anyway. [/quote]
I agree. Baptism by immersion is just one more thing Protestants use to justify their beleif that the Catholic Church is wrong. What mainstream Protestants don't know is that both the Lutheran and Anglican Church baptize infants as well.

The fact is that one can't shove a baby's head under water without killing the poor creature.

If Protestants want to be satisfied with Catholic baptismal methods, let them see a baptism of an RCIA candidate. Baptisms for Catholic adults usually take place as immerions.

Edited December 24, 2004 by conservativecatholic

[PolyCarp of Smyrna]

A person whom I work with recently presented me with the following commentary which condemns water baptism:

[font="Times"][color=blue]How should I serve the Lord now that I believe?
1. Should I be baptized?

While many pastors would say “yes” the Apostle Paul says “no”. Water baptism was once a part of God’s program for His people Israel, but it is not a part of God’s program for His people today, the Body of Christ.

Whenever we are told the purpose of baptism in Scripture, it is always said to be “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3.3; Acts 2:38). The Lord Himself insisted, “He that beleiveth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). But after Israel rejected her King, the Lord raised up the Apostle Paul, and made him “the apostle of the Gentiles” (Romans 11:13). This new apostle declared, “Christ sent me not to baptize” (1 Corinthians 1:17), and then said, “be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1)

Water baptism is a work, it is something that we can do, and Paul insists that salvation today is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration,” and not by the washing of water baptism (Titus 3:5).

It is the teaching of Paul that we don’t need water baptism, “for by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body” (1 Corinthians 12:13). This spiritual baptism took place the moment we were saved, and we are now “complete in Him” (Colossians 2:10), completely circumcised with a spiritual circumcision (Colossians 2:11), and completely baptized with a spiritual baptism (Colossians 2:12). Paul then affirms that while there are many different kinds of baptism in the Bible (Matthew 3:11; 1 Corinthians 10:1,2), three is only “one baptism” in God’s program for today (Ephesians 4:5), referring of course to our spiritual baptism into Christ. The words “one baptism” leave no room for an additional baptism with water.

It is often taught that while baptism today does not save us, it is a testimony to salvation. However, this is not taught in Scripture. Water baptism today is only a bad testimony, for it testifies that the one being baptized does not understand that they are complete in Christ without water baptism.[/color][/font]

I crafted a response to this commentary which tallied 20 pages. A bit extreme? Well, if you'd like I will email you the file with the stipulation that you respond back to me with your constructive criticisms.

I am always looking to sharpen my apologetic edge.

[thessalonian]

Very sad.

Please do.

Geraldh@usfamily.net

[mulls]

yea, i get upset when my fellow brothers and sisters casually brush off baptism. it took me a year and a half to get baptized after the Lord saved me, and i was very, very convicted about my disobedience, so i had it done after church one sunday....almost exactly one year ago.

[homeschoolmom]

While I don't mean to argue against infant baptism, I think some of these statements are rather silly and work to make your valid arguement sound rediculous.

[quote]In fact, when a baptism does occur, it usually takes place in a fellow "churchman's" bathtub. [/quote]

I was a Protestant for 35 years (in churches of infant and adult baptism)... I never saw anyone baptized in a bathtub...

[quote]The fact is that one can't shove a baby's head under water without killing the poor creature.[/quote]

Untrue... while HOLDING a child's head under water can kill him, dunking it under will not. It may however, make him madder than hell... Besides, I think the Orthodox immerse infants.

[quote]What mainstream Protestants don't know is that both the Lutheran and Anglican Church baptize infants as well. [/quote]

And Methodists and Presbyterians, too... Most Protestants of various denominations (if they are, in fact, church going) are pretty aware that there are different methods of baptism. Baptists and Pentacostals are fully aware that other Protestant denominations baptize infants.

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 24 2004, 03:47 PM'] While I don't mean to argue against infant baptism, I think some of these statements are rather silly and work to make your valid arguement sound rediculous.



I was a Protestant for 35 years (in churches of infant and adult baptism)... I never saw anyone baptized in a bathtub...



Untrue... while HOLDING a child's head under water can kill him, dunking it under will not. It may however, make him madder than hell... Besides, I think the Orthodox immerse infants.



And Methodists and Presbyterians, too... Most Protestants of various denominations (if they are, in fact, church going) are pretty aware that there are different methods of baptism. Baptists and Pentacostals are fully aware that other Protestant denominations baptize infants. [/quote]
First of all. Do not refer to my remarks as silly.

Second, do not accuse me of lying. And yes mam, you blatantly accused me of lying. I never invent ridiculous and invalid statements to defend my position. As a loyal and orthodox Catholic, I would never even think about that. Why on earth would I have to make up stuff to prove that I'm right?

Third, I'm not homeschooled. I know what it's like to live in the real world. My community is predominantly Protestant. I have countless Protestant friends in my public highschool and a father who has been a Baptist for over 51 years. I know my facts. I do not live a sheltered life.

Lastly, my Protestant friends have spoken to me about their methods of baptism. Some have been baptized in baptistries, others in rivers and bathtubs. I have seen pictures as well. So to put it in layman terms, I have both visual and oral references regarding "bathtub" baptizing. Good Day.

Edited December 24, 2004 by conservativecatholic

[Archangel]

It takes more work to read the entire bible than it is to get baptized.

[homeschoolmom]

Conservative Catholic--
I did not accuse you of lying. I accused you of exageration to make a point-- which there is no need to do.

You said, "In fact, when a baptism does occur, it usually takes place in a fellow "churchman's" bathtub." Please show me that this is [i]usually[/i] the case. I would agree that it is [i]sometimes[/i] the case, but to say it is the normal way for Protestants to baptize is an exageration.

Then you said, "The fact is that one can't shove a baby's head under water without killing the poor creature." Again, I maintain that the Orthodox do put the baby's head under water in baptism. Are you telling me that they are killing their babies left and right and no one is doing anything about it? It is not a "fact" that a baby's head can't go under water without killing him. If this is the case, I'm sure the media would love to do an expose on this ritualistic baby killing.

You then said, "What mainstream Protestants don't know is that both the Lutheran and Anglican Church baptize infants as well." Please show me that this is true outside of your circle of high school friends.

I will ignore you ignorant comments about homeschooling because I can see from you other comments, you don't really understand what constitutes a fact and what constitutes an opinion. You are entitled to your opinions, however ignorant and misguided they are.

[PolyCarp of Smyrna]

[font="Optima"][color=red]The following is an excerpt from a response I composed to the above mentioned bible commentary that was presented to me by my co-worker:[/color][/font]


[font="Arial"][color=blue]This new apostle declared, “Christ sent me not to baptize” (1 Corinthians 1:17), and then said, “be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1)[/color][/font]

The author mutilates the 1 Corinthians 1:17 and submits only a part of the verse, which has been divorced from its context, and thus unscrupulously submitted as a support for the author’s intentions.

To achieve its context, it is necessary to observe and understand the verses that lead up to and precede this particular passage. Let’s take a look at the contextual aspect of this verse:

1 Corinthians 1:10-17

10. I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
11. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
12. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."
13. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14. I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius;
15. lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
16. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
17. For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

In light of this context, it is evident that Paul is emphasizing that his Apostolic duties are not limited to baptism, but rather that his primary function is “to preach the gospel” of which water baptism is a part.

This instruction is present in “Didache” which in English translates to “The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles”, which is an guideline that is believed to have been written by the by the Apostles. The Didache manuscript has been dated to the year A.D. 70, and even in recent times, the latest date that any scholar is willing to attribute is no later than the beginning of the second century. Take a look at Chapter 11, verses 3- 7 of the Didache:

Didache 11:3-7
3 But concerning the apostles and prophets, so do ye according to the ordinance of the
Gospel. 4 Let every apostle, when he cometh to you, be received as the Lord; 5 but he shall not abide more than a single day, or if there be need, a second likewise; but if he abide three days, he is a false prophet. 6 And when he departeth let the apostle receive nothing save bread, until he findeth shelter; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. 7

The time restraints prohibits any Apostle from staying at a particular church for more than two days. This is because the Apostle preaches the Gospel and validates and consecrates the establishment of the hierarchy (Bishops, Elders, Deacons, etc), and then moves on to the next Church, leaving the duties of the administration to the clergy which the Apostles ordained. The responsibility of the clergy then was to care for all of the needs of the Church, which included baptizing new converts. That is why Paul indicates that his apostolic duties are not only baptizing, but that the preaching of the gospel is of a time dependant nature which limits his availability to baptize new converts.

The Lords Teaching, If the passage, as the author is trying to implicate, is an rejection to water baptism, then it most likely would have been worded “For Christ sent me to NOT baptize,…”

The author seems to be unaware of all of the households of Gentiles that Paul baptized. Scripture speaks of “whole households” that were baptized, which in all probability would have included young children and/or infants. When the author submitted the quotation from 1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1 “be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” one must ponder what he thinks it means to be a “follower”? Apparently he’s viewpoint deviated significantly from the historical definition which meant to “be like the person is and do what the person does”, this is the very essence of what it means to be a “follower” of Christ…to be like Christ. It is from this effort to be like Jesus that we arrive at the term “disciple”- the title attributed by scripture to those who were followers of Jesus. The Merriam-Webster Inc. Online Dictionary (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary ) provides the following definition for the term “disciple”:

Main Entry: dis•ci•ple
Pronunciation: di-'sI-p&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English discipul & Old French desciple, from Late Latin and Latin; Late Latin discipulus follower of Jesus Christ in his lifetime, from Latin, pupil
1 : one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another: as a : one of the twelve in the inner circle of Christ's followers according to the Gospel accounts b : a convinced adherent of a school or individual
2 capitalized : a member of the Disciples of Christ founded in the U.S. in 1809 that holds the Bible alone to be the rule of faith and practice, usually baptizes by immersion, and has a congregational polity
synonym see FOLLOWER
- dis•ci•ple•ship /-"ship/ noun

It would seem that, much to the author’s surprise, both Jesus (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21) and Paul (Acts 9:17-18) were baptized with water. Jesus performed baptisms with His followers as in John 3:22 “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.”

Thus, it should come an no surprise that Jesus instructed His Apostles in Matthew 28:19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

In light of this command, Paul baptized many gentile households, as was the will of the Lord. I wonder how the author is to reconcile this verse, since most nations were Gentile (other than Israel, obviously) and yet Christ commanded His Apostles to baptize them. Didn’t the Lord know that baptism was only for Israel?

To be followers of Christ is to “keep His commands” to “persevere to the end “, to “finish the race”. This is to do as Christ would do, and Christ himself was baptized by water as was Paul and all the Apostles, including many others that they brought into the fold of Christ. This hardly denies, but rather affirms the need for water baptism as initiation into the Christian faith.


[font="Impact"][color=purple]MERRY CHRISTMAS![/color][/font]

[thessalonian]

I simply don't know what part of "teach all nations, BAPTIZING them..." is hard for your friend and his pastor to understand.