 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13th, 2006 07:40 pm |
|
Hello Again Folks,
First off I want to say that if any of the moderators want to move this post, that is OK. I'm posting it here first because I know that this section gets more attention than the others, and I would like some timely responses.
As some of you might know, I have made it evident that I am struggling with the Catholic concept of Baptism, and specifically baby Baptism. With that said, I think I may have just had an epiphany (so to speak) a few minutes ago.
I was reading the post in the Baptism section that Brian started, and just finished reading all the responses a short time ago. Now while I have always suspected that there was more to Baptism than the Protestant faith teaches, I never knew how to explain it from scripture. (yes, I did know about that verse that says "and this corresponds to Baptism which now saves us." But Protestants always put that one on the shelf just like some other literal passages).
Anyhow, just like a lightbulb in my spirit, the passage at the end of Matthew came to my mind. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:18-20. The thought came to me, how can something we do in the "name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" have no effect? Aren't Protestants saying in effect, that those are just mere words that mean nothing because Baptism produces no change or effects no change? And if that be the case, then wasn't Jesus just arbitrarily using the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? (according to Protestants) Couldn't He just as easily have omitted using Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or used some other words, since Baptism has no real effect and has no life changing results?
Of course this is not the case. I am just asking those questions rhetorically because Jesus specifically meant to say "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" because this is what gives Baptism its power and makes it effective. Right??
And furthermore, if these words pronounced during Baptism mean nothing, then why do the words in the Sinner's Prayer, which Protestants triumph as being the crux of salvation, have real power and effect? Now this is coming from one who said that prayer, and saw a real life change immediately afterward. So I'm not saying that one who says the Sinner's Prayer sincerely repenting of their sins, cannot experience a regeneration from the Holy Spirit. I'm just making comparisons that if Protestants want to place such emphasis on words of the Sinner's Prayer as having life changing effects, but not on baptizing in the "name ofo the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" then that is inconsistent. Right??
And furthermore, (yes, I'm being redudant), couldn't an argument be made for basing one's salvation on the Matthew 28 text as much as the John 3:3 text? In fact, perhaps even more since Baptism is mentioned in the Bible many times more than being born again (anew)?
I just thought I would run this by you folks on this forum. Now, I still have to come to a better understanding of baby Baptism. Somehow, this one is a stickler for me. And if you read under one of dc's recent posts, you'll know why. In a nutshell, I experienced the grace of God coming into my life, along with the power to overcome sin and the temptations of the world, BEFORE being baptized. And many Christains have.
Thought I would share some of my recent thoughts with all of you.
In Christ,
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2074 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13th, 2006 11:44 pm |
|
I guess this is for you that two-by-four over the head that we hear about on occasion. Yes, dc is still struggling with this. I hope he stays with us, because he has some interesting ideas that cause us to pause. We can all learn through dialogue.
Regarding your “in the name of” litany, I could not help but think of how many times I hear “in the name of Jesus” cited by Protestants as a particularly effective phrase. Yet Jesus is only one of the Persons of the Divine Trinity; are the other Persons then ineffective or irrelevant? How many believer-baptism Protestants have made these simple considerations? I see grace at work in you, Darlene.
David
|
|
|
BettyBoopToo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Camas/Washougal, Washington USA |
| Posts: | 538 |
| First Name: | Betty | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Fist Baptist/Calvary Babtist/Secular Confusion/ Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13th, 2006 11:58 pm |
|
Darlene: I just added some scripture with mention of children here, We can see that Christ does not exactly mention infants or their baptism, But what we do see is that he does infact say to bring the Children to him and to not hinder their coming to him.
We can also see in situations as feeding the 5,000 that the gospel writers include woman & children. And we do see that Jesus rebukes those who try and interfere with the children coming to him.
As we read through the New Testament, We can see where deciples go into town's, cities, households, etc. But no where is there mention of an age requirement or mental capacity, Requirement to baptism. All are called to come to Christ and also offered his saving grace. Jew, Gentile, Sinner, Saint, Man, Woman, You get my point.
Just as you found the Calvinest (sp) repulsive to believe that a womans miscarried baby could possibly go to hell. I did too think it horrible. As parents and christians, I believe that God wants us to bring our babies to him and cannot find any evidence that tells me it would be wrong.
I did not include any ECF's writings but here is a link where I think you may find what you need. I have learned alot from this site and it's great for looking up and studying spacific information.
God Bless, I'm really enjoying your sharing with us. God is so amazing how he works in each of us. I can nearly see the dust billowing out from behind you
Betty
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html
Matt 19:14 But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such
Matt 23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not?
Mark 7:27 Who said to her: suffer first the children to be filled: for it is not good to take the bread of the children and cast it to the dogs.
Mark 10:13 And they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them.
Mark 10:14 Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased and saith to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luke 18:16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God
Acts 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.
Acts 21:5 And the days being expired, departing we went forward, they all bringing us on our way, with their wives and children, till we were out of the city. And we kneeled down on the shore: and we prayed.
1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife: and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband. Otherwise your children should be unclean: but now they are holy. Comment Is sanctified. . .The meaning is not, that the faith of the husband or the wife is of itself sufficient to put the unbelieving party, or their children, in the state of grace and salvation; but that it is very often an occasion of their sanctification, by bringing them to the true faith.
Eph 6:1 children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is just.
Eph 6:4 And you, fathers, provoke not your children to anger: but bring them up in the discipline and correction of the Lord.
Col 3:20 children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord.
Here is a link to an entire search on Baptism, I've sometimes found it helpful to just read through each passage and prayerfully reflect on the text.
http://www.catholicfirst.com/searchengine.cfm?action=search
____________________
Patience
"Whenever anything disagreeable or displeasing happens to you, remember Christ crucified and be silent."
St. John of the Cross
|
|
|
lia
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | Quezon City, Philippines |
| Posts: | 98 |
| First Name: | lia | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26th, 2007 01:15 am |
|
I'm wondering, what is the understanding of Protestants about baptism. What is the significance of baptism to them? I know that not all believe in infant baptism.
But for those who don't believe in infant baptism, do they believe in baptism as making them "a child of God"? If this is so, then why would one wait to be an adult to be baptized? Aren't we denying God's gift to us to make us his children if we don't baptize babies? So why should we choose (a time and date) for us to be God's children? If I were an infant still and can get my say if I want to be a child of God ... I WOULD DEMAND TO BE BAPTIZED.Why should I wait till I'm old enough to be able to choose Him? Are we, as sons and daughters of our parents get to choose them before we were born? And when we grow up, isn't it our choice to either obey or defy them? But it will not change the fact that we are their children. It is the same with God. Once we are baptized and become His children...it is then our choice to either obey or deny him when we grow up, (and have the opportunity to come back to him...just like the prodigal son).
When Jesus ascended into heaven, I believe he said, "Baptise them (all men, right?...er...humanity) in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." He didn't follow this up with "...only if they are of age of reason and ready to accept me as their Lord and Savior". So those who welcomed the disciples in their homes and were baptized ... surely everybody in that household were baptized... Even the infants.
An argument I heard about why infants need not be baptized is because Jesus was not baptized when he was an infant (he was only dedicated to the Lord) and was only baptized when he was 30 and that a child is sinless until he reaches the age of 5.
The flaw I see in this reasoning is that Jesus was not baptized as an infant because it was Jesus who would institutionalize baptism. Jesus was dedicated to the Lord as an infant because that is in Jewish law. (Ex. 13:1) Every first born are dedicated (consecrated) to the Lord. As for the second argument... I don't know if there is a scientific proof or study of this.
And this made me think of what having original sin entails. Our first parents were thrown out of paradise because of their sin of disobedience. It is them who sinned, right? So why do we say we have original sin when we are born. Well, if we are born without sin, why are we born in this world? Shouldn't we be born in heaven since we don't have sin? But that's just it. We did inherit our first parents' sin (original sin) that's why we are here on earth. This original sin separated us from God. Only baptism will wash away this original sin, for us to become once again, CHILDREN OF GOD.
I guess, that's why Holy Mother Church allows lay people to be able to baptize during emergencies. Like if a baby is very ill and there is no priest to perform the baptism, lay people can perform an emergency baptism on the sick baby for it to enter heaven. What about for those babies who died without baptism? I was once taught that they go to a certain place called "limbo". (I don't know if this is still being taught.) Limbo is like purgatory for babies? But, hey, I'm not God. But I believe in His mercy. I believe that if these babies didn't enter heaven upon death...eventually they will. It's not fair to the unbaptized baby? God can forgive a murderer who repented. Is that fair to the family of the murdered person? Who are we to say what is fair and isn't fair to God. His ways are not our ways.
I'm not sure if my reasonings here are theologically sound, though. :?  But this is what I wanted to share here. 
____________________
Man can't b forced 2 accept the truth.He can b drawn toward the truth only by his own nature, that is, by his own freedom w/c commits him 2 search sincerely 4 truth & when he finds it, 2 adhere 2 it both in his conviction & his behavior.-- JP2
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2074 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26th, 2007 01:59 am |
|
lia wrote:I'm wondering, what is the understanding of Protestants about baptism. What is the significance of baptism to them? I know that not all believe in infant baptism.
We can go back to Darlene’s original post for this, Lia. Here’s what she said:
Darlene wrote:The thought came to me, how can something we do in the "name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" have no effect? Aren't Protestants saying in effect, that those are just mere words that mean nothing because Baptism produces no change or effects no change? And if that be the case, then wasn't Jesus just arbitrarily using the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? (according to Protestants) Couldn't He just as easily have omitted using Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or used some other words, since Baptism has no real effect and has no life changing results?
I believe she is correct. What is described here is Nominalism. Now Martin Luther and other early Protestants were strongly influenced by the philosophy of William of Ockham, who was one of the originators of Nominalism. This is why many of them believe that baptism has no effect, but is just an empty gesture.
You, on the other hand, are convinced that there is an effect from baptism, whereby one becomes a child of God, and you argue from that effect to the cause. Therefore you see the necessity of baptism for salvation. By itself, it is not a strong argument, although it is a valid one.
I think Darlene’s biblical insight is a powerful one in favor of baptism’s effectiveness. The biblical injunction to baptize implies a purpose and therefore an effect, and this is the real force of the argument for infant baptism. I’ve made this point several times on the forum, but never in quite the form Darlene gives it.
What about for those babies who died without baptism? I was once taught that they go to a certain place called "limbo". (I don't know if this is still being taught.) Limbo is like purgatory for babies?
The idea of a place of natural happiness for unbaptized innocents, such as babies who die in infancy, was proposed by St. Augustine back in the fourth century. Theologians have investigated it, and just last summer the Vatican announced that it no longer sees limbo as a viable possibility, that there are other, better theological possibilities. So far, however, we have nothing definitive to take its place. The Catechism simply states that we “entrust them to the mercy of God,” who wills that all mankind be saved (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4).
David
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 656 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26th, 2007 09:57 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote: many of them believe that baptism has no effect, but is just an empty gesture.
Exactly. My baptism was an outward sign that I was dedicating myself to God (Jehovah) but didn't *mean* anything else. It wasn't special. And it also doesn't count. They don't baptize in the name of the Blessed Trinity, so I get to have a real one done.
One more thing to look forward to when dh's annulment process is complete.
Ali
Last edited on Mon Feb 26th, 2007 09:58 am by Ali
|
|
|
beachmoss
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Simpsonville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 289 |
| First Name: | Beth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic (raised Baptist) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26th, 2007 02:25 pm |
|
In the Baptist Church I used to attend, baptism was treated as an external sign of one's "decision" to become a Christian. It was meant as a sign to the church family that you had accepted Christ and were becoming a member of the church.
I made the "decision" as a young teen, but I was never baptised. I was told by my youth leaders that I should, yet they never pressured me or hauled me before the pastor saying "I got another one!" But I felt that the church only required it as a public display of faith. And at that time I felt that accepting Christ was a personal choice, a private matter, and that there was no need of flaunting it publicly.
There were no graces to be obtained from baptism. Only that you were telling the church family that you were joining them. Then, of course, you were eligible to receive communion--on the rare occassions it was offered. But in light of what I know now--what purpose did it serve to receive communion. I'm guessing it was pretty meaningless too!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5348 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26th, 2007 06:19 pm |
|
beachmoss wrote: what purpose did it serve to receive communion. I'm guessing it was pretty meaningless too!
Snacks to hold you during those l-o-o-o-o-n-g sermons!
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
beachmoss
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Simpsonville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 289 |
| First Name: | Beth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic (raised Baptist) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26th, 2007 06:32 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote: Snacks to hold you during those l-o-o-o-o-n-g sermons!
If only! You can't imagine what a plate of saltine cracker crumbs and tiny cups of grape juice look like to a starving child! And then to be told sternly that you can't have any!!!
|
|
|
Current time is 09:08 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
