Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Protestant Denominations, Catholics Sign Ecumenical ‘Mutual Recognition of Baptism’ Agreement
Christian News Network ^ | January 30, 2013 | Heather Clark

Posted on 02/24/2013 11:55:01 AM PST by daniel1212

Austin, Texas – Leaders from several Protestant denominations met with representatives from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last night to sign an ecumenical document agreeing to recognize each other’s baptisms.

The document, entitled “These Living Waters: Common Agreement on the Mutual Recognition of Baptism,” has been approximately four years in the making. The Presbyterian Church USA was reportedly the first to deliberate the move, followed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“The Common Agreement affirms that both Catholic and Reformed Christians hold that baptism is the sacramental bond of unity for the Body of Christ, which is to be performed only once, by an authorized minister, with flowing water, using the Scriptural Trinitarian formula of ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” wrote the bishops in a news release about the matter two years ago.

Therefore, if a person is baptized by a Catholic priest but later converts to a Protestant church, the denominations involved in the ecumenical gesture agree to accept the baptism and not ask that the person be baptized over again — and vice versa.

The Common Agreement was signed last night in Austin, Texas by members of both the Presbyterian Church USA and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as well as the Christian Reformed Church of North America, the Reformed Church of America and the United Church of Christ.

Writer Brian Cross says that while there has been somewhat of an alliance between Protestants and Catholics over the matter for centuries, disagreement has remained.

“The Catholic Church has long recognized the validity of Protestant baptisms in which the person was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” he explained. “In the last ten or fifteen years, however, there were concerns among Catholic bishops regarding Protestant baptisms in which different names were substituted for the Holy Trinity, or in which a method of sprinkling was used that did not achieve any flow of water on the skin.”

Connect with Christian News

“The Dutch and German Reformed traditions have generally recognized the validity of Catholic baptisms, as have most Presbyterian churches. The major exception to this were the Presbyterian churches in the United States since the time of James Henry Thornwell in the mid-nineteenth century, especially in the south. Thornwell argued that Catholic baptisms were invalid because Catholic priests were not ‘lawful ministers of the Word,’” Cross continued. “Some Reformed denominations in the United States remain on Thornwell’s side of that debate, and still do not necessarily accept the validity of Catholic baptisms.”

While there remains debate over whether Protestants — those who agree with Reformers such as Martin Luther, who rebuked and separated from the Roman Catholic Church with his “95 theses,” a document that outlined his many concerns with the establishment’s traditions and teachings — should agree to recognize Catholic baptisms, the greater question of whether Protestants and Catholics should engage in any forms of ecumenicism at all continues to be an issue among Christians.

“Everybody’s afraid to say that Roman Catholics are not Christians, and that if you make that statement, you are perceived as unloving or old school,” stated Pastor Jon Speed of the Log College and Christ is King Baptist Church in Syracuse, New York. “But, either we’re trying to hide what we believe about the Gospel, or we don’t really believe it.”



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian
KEYWORDS: baptism; catholic; ecumenism; reformed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-156 next last
To: xone

There you go again... "getting" things all wrong, sideways if not upside down. Any 'ol which-way but up.

I'll not be fighting the straw. Have fun with the creation, if that is what is preferred.

101 posted on 02/25/2013 1:06:42 PM PST by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Thanks.


102 posted on 02/25/2013 1:14:42 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
I was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church but when I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, after I understood the gospel of the grace of God, I was baptized again for what I consider the first, legitimate time. This was because I had personally received Jesus Christ and made a conscious decision to follow Him.

Same here.
103 posted on 02/25/2013 1:45:51 PM PST by Old Yeller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

You wrote:

“It was a CORPORATE convenant - with the entire NATION; not an individual one that we now embrace.”

Actually, it was a corporate covenant - but circumcision was the individual response. The covenant with the Church is corporate as well - and baptism is the individual response.


104 posted on 02/25/2013 4:12:39 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

You misread Holy Scripture and denigrate the teaching of the Apostles and their successors - that is what leads you into error and why you get rejected.


105 posted on 02/25/2013 4:41:41 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: narses

Narses,
If you think I’ve “misread” the Scripture, prove it. You cannot, of course, and so you didn’t even try. Your call. No problem.

I support the Apostle’s teaching entirely. I do not include all the stuff made up apart from God’s Word that was added centuries later. If you do, your call. No problem.

If you don’t want to discuss things factually, evidentially, logically, your call. No problem.


106 posted on 02/25/2013 5:36:11 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Wow! Good job! Thank you so much for taking the time to explain these passages so well. It demonstrates how important it is to go to the word of God and study with the Holy Spirit illuminating God’s truth to our hearts. It is beyond question that baptism is an outward sign of what has happened within the heart - each, individual heart.


107 posted on 02/25/2013 6:23:11 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
If you think I’ve “misread” the Scripture, prove it.

There you go again; wanting the cereal box to appear!

108 posted on 02/25/2013 7:42:44 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom; steve86; CynicalBear
I always thought that infant baptism was a covenant that the parents make to raise a child iin a Christian home. Confirmation is when the child accepts the baptism.

No, that is a common misunderstanding with no sound theological basis. It is a common misconception amongst Catholics of the Roman Rite because of the late age at which they are confirmed. Baptism has to do with cleansing the person from original sin and reclaiming them for God, the parents speak on behalf of the child, but they are not the one making the covenant. Catholic parents made a promise to raise their children as Catholics at the time of their Marriage, not at the time of the child's baptism.

Also, Confirmation has nothing to do with getting an opportunity to accept your baptism as an adult. The effect of the baptism of an infant is valid with or without the Confirmation. A person who has been validly baptized already belongs to Christ and need only ratify this by loving God and living in accordance with His law,

Confirmation is not a coming of age ceremony in which a person accepts Christ, it is a separate sacrament of initiation which strengthens the Christian, bestows additional graces, and seals the recipient with the Holy Ghost.

The point that Confirmation has nothing to do with giving a teenager the opportunity to ratify his infant baptism is illustrated by the fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches baptize AND confirm Catholics as infants, and these Confirmations are valid and licit even though the recipient is an infant.

109 posted on 02/26/2013 12:03:39 AM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xone

Thanks for what?


110 posted on 02/26/2013 5:26:50 AM PST by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

For your time and the conversation.


111 posted on 02/26/2013 5:29:42 AM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: old republic; luckystarmom; steve86
>>Baptism has to do with cleansing the person from original sin and reclaiming them for God<<

No it does not. We are cleansed by Jesus blood.

>>The effect of the baptism of an infant is valid with or without the Confirmation<<

What utter nonsense. Unless the individual accepts Christ when they are of age they are not saved. Until they are of age they are covered by the parents belief and faith.

This whole notion of baptism being the act that saves is nonsense and dangerous. Baptism is a sign of the sprinkling or washing of Jesus blood as the final and complete sacrifice. The sprinkling of the blood of a sacrificed lamb on the doorpost saved the children in the Old Testament. It signified the belief of the parents and the sacrifice required prior to Jesus death on the cross. Today it signifies the covering of the shed blood of Christ. Once a child attains the age of accountability that child must accept Christ for his/her own salvation.

112 posted on 02/26/2013 11:34:30 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

113 posted on 02/27/2013 7:17:38 AM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: xone; P-Marlowe

Psalm 8:2 is definitely saying that more than one babe or suckling infant is involved. Even the youngest, apparently in their own way, can praise God.

So far as infant baptism is concerned, it is a sign act that really is no different than circumcision at 8 days old for a Hebrew male. That Hebrew baby didn’t know what was taking place (so far as we know), but it was nonetheless incorporated into the body of believers.

That is the same with sign-baptism and the Church era. We baptize to show that the children, too, are part of, and the responsibility of, the church. Their inclusion is probationary until they accept for themselves the truth of the gospel message. Our responsibility as parents is to dedicate ourselves to ensuring they know that message.

The Apostle Paul did say that our children are set aside by God.

1 Co 7: 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

In other words, the family members of believers are sanctified (set apart) in the eyes of God who has them in a favorable position as opposed to those who are not set apart.

This helps to understand the “household” baptism comments in Acts 16 & 18, Lydia, the Jailer, and Crispus. The Lord takes our loved ones into special care.

Acts 16: 14 One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

Given that truth, that our loved ones are viewed as set apart by God, His working on them will be continuous. Therefore, it makes sense to administer a sign of baptism on our children and to consider them a part of the church until they receive it for themselves.


114 posted on 02/27/2013 7:26:02 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: narses; aMorePerfectUnion

See #114.

While an infant baptism isn’t depicted in the New Testament, a circumcision at 8 days old is.

Moreover, the New Testament is about the first generation of believers, especially the book of Acts, which is a history, and not about the children or grandchildren of the first believers.

Finally, the Lord said to those early believers:

Matthew 16:19 NIV I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:18 NIV “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

There is nothing inherently wrong with receiving children into the church in a probationary capacity. If that were so, then it would have also been so during the Old Testament.


115 posted on 02/27/2013 7:37:19 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“There is nothing inherently wrong with receiving children into the church in a probationary capacity. If that were so, then it would have also been so during the Old Testament.”

I would disagree...

Your example of circumcision is from a covenant God made with the NATION of Israel. It was done to EVERY male in the nation. It was an outward sign that they were under a covenant. Every time they saw their “member”, they were reminded their nation had a covenant with God.

Baptism is an outward individual sign that an inward change has happened, and the individual has decided to publicly testify that he or she is a follower of Christ. Infants can neither exercise saving faith, nor testify they are following Christ.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with receiving children into the church in a probationary capacity.”

If you want to sprinkle or dunk to show your personal intent as a parent, realize that is totally different than the Biblical teaching of believers baptism. The use of baptism for other purposes distorts its meaning.

Baptism is not for “probation”. It is commanded as part of discipleship. It is demonstrated only for those who heard and believed.

I repeat from upthread:

No where does the Bible command baptism for infants. It commands it for adult believers.
No where does the Bible provide instructions for baptism of infants.
No where does the Bible show an infant being baptized. Ever.

Any argument beyond that is to support an idea that did not originate in Scripture.


116 posted on 02/27/2013 9:27:36 AM PST by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; luckystarmom; steve86
This whole notion of baptism being the act that saves is nonsense and dangerous. Baptism is a sign of the sprinkling or washing of Jesus blood as the final and complete sacrifice.

I don't think that there is much difference between our positions. I think that what you are saying is very similar to what I'm saying, but with a fine semantic differences about baptism or Christ's blood saving. So let me explain this more clearly.

Baptism or the desire for it are absolutely necessary for salvation to those who are aware of its necessity. Yes, it is the blood of Christ that saves and the blood of Christ is the actual cause of salvation, but baptism or the desire for it is the ordinary method that Christ has chosen to apply His saving Blood to us. (This is why Revelation 1:5 says those who are saved have "washed their robes in the blood of the lamb." Baptism or the desire for it are the way in which we are washed in His Precious Blood.

Also Christ says "If you love me, keep my commandments." (Jn 14:15) Baptism is a command directly from God, given by Christ at the Ascension: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..."

Baptism is a command from God. Thus if you know about the necessity of baptism and you refuse to receive it, then you are refusing to obey God, and if you refuse to obey God then you do not truly love Him, because you do not keep His commandments. If you do not love God, then it is absurd to presume that you are saved.

Galatians 3:27 declares that it is through baptism that Christians put on Christ.

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Thus implicitly if you are refusing baptism, you are refusing to put on Christ. It should also be noted that the apostle does not say that all people who believe have put on Christ, he only said "as many of you as have been baptized into Christ" have put on Christ.

Unless the individual accepts Christ when they are of age they are not saved. Until they are of age they are covered by the parents belief and faith.

Agreed, an infant is to young to have faith of its own. That's why when the Catholic Church baptizes an infant, it is the parents' faith that enables the baptism until the child has reached the age of accountability. (So if you say that a parent's faith is enough to save a child, that would also suggest that the parent's faith is enough to enable the child to be baptized.) After, the baptized child reaches the age of accountability, the grace of baptism only continues to be effective in them if they have saving faith.

Also, since the command of baptism comes from Christian Christian parents are under obligation to baptize their babies as soon as possible.

117 posted on 02/27/2013 11:09:39 AM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
outward individual sign that an inward change has happened

Find that quote for me in the bible.

118 posted on 02/27/2013 11:46:13 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“Find that quote for me in the bible.”

I will assume you know that is not a quote. It is a definition.

Baptism is commanded of BELIEVERS - see Matthew 28:18-20.


119 posted on 02/27/2013 11:49:34 AM PST by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

How can it be a definition if it is not biblical???

Here’s a quote from the Barnabas, an early Christian who wrote this after the destruction of the Temple but probably before the Bar Kochba rebellion, roughly 70-130 AD

In Chapter 19 he writes:

“Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born. Thou shalt not withdraw thy hand from thy son, or from thy daughter, but from their infancy thou shalt teach them the fear of the Lord.(252)”

How does that strike you?


120 posted on 02/27/2013 12:33:29 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-156 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson