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. 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.”
“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.”
You are forgiven, no problem.
Oh, narses, you know I didn’t “teach” anything. I pointed out the Bible no where shows the baptism of an infant. No where commands the baptism of an infant. No where gives instructions about baptizing infants.
That is simply a fact. What you do with it is up to you. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m discussing this issue on a conservative discussion website.
You do not wish to discuss, and that is your right.
That is one of the reasons why, when someone is planning to come into the Church at Easter via RCIA, there are two groups. The ones already baptized are called “canidates”, those who are not “catachumeums” who would be receiving all three sacraments.
I'll try and avoid responding in like manner, if I fail please forgive me. Discussing God's Word shouldn't raise bile, unless of course you misuse it.
Psalm 8:2
2 Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants
You have ordained strength,
Because of Your enemies,
That You may silence the enemy and the avenger
Psalm 22:9
9 But You are He who took Me out of the womb;
You made Me trust while on My mother’s breasts.
Looks like I have the same problem as the Holy Spirit and David, I can't tell the difference between a child and an infant. That's OK, as I think I'll side with them. It seems plain.
Why would the baby be in need? According to what you reference, they are taken care of.
Far from justifing infant baptismal, or the need for such, what you bring helps serve to PROVE THE OPPOSITE.
Can you not see that?
Why would the baby be in need?
Because infants are under the curse of sin. God has provided the cure.
That is broadly speaking, as unlike what this formally agreement affirms, and despite the broad language of Lumen Gentium, this does not affirm all Protestant baptisms as being "proper baptisms." And while there is good reason not to due to cults (and evangelical churches can reject both Catholic and "Jesus only" baptisms, besides Mormonic, etc.), what is meant by "intends to do what the church does" would seem to exclude those who adhere to credobaptism, rather than baptismal regeneration.
And at least years ago,
"Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics [per Rome's definition] 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." Catholic Encyclopedia>Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm)
And where are you getting the idea that the Catholic Church is liberal?
Where? From those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death: http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html
I shouldn't be so utterly amazed at the lengths the writer(s?) at "scripture-catholic" go to in defense of that which they percieve is RCC doctrine, but I'm still blown away by the obtuseness found there. It's like they are going out of their way to make Roman catholicism look bad.
That place is wall-to-wall mess. But it serves a purpose...just not the exact purpose the originators of that site I assume intended.
Then we may as well baptize puppies too, pronouncing the words over them as some form of incantation.
Yes. Although all infants are baptised into the Catholic church, there is also Confirmation and first communion at around age 12, before which they take classes in faith and doctrine. Thus, I wonder if this could be considered similar to ‘believers baptism’? This might be a stretch, but the Confirmation and First Communion is done at the same age as many Protestant baptisms?
This is a prophetic psalm! You have NO clue who David is prophesying about. Read the WHOLE Psalm - not cherry pick 'children/babes in womb' Scriptures to suit your ill teaching of infant baptism!
Does this apply to David?
Psalm 22 ...'they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.'
I'm not surprised you didn't recognize JESUS, not surprised at all.
Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
These words were quoted by Jesus on the cross (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34). Psalm 22 was a prophetic psalm, and it was Jesus speaking. We deserved to be forsaken for our sins, so Jesus took our sins and bore our rejection by God.
Psalms 22:3 gives the reason why the Father forsook His Son. It was because Jesus became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21 and 1 Peter 2:24).
A number of verses from Psalms 22 were quoted in the New Testament and applied directly to Jesus’ death on the cross.
So much for your ill teaching of infant baptism you are so hard in pushing. Now where would that deception come from?
'Someone' wants you deceived as you bought it hook, line and sinker and then brought it here to deceive others while claiming to be like David and the Holy Spirit with your.. Looks like I have the same problem as the Holy Spirit and David, I can't tell the difference between a child and an infant. That's OK, as I think I'll side with them. It seems plain..
And you don't even recognize JESUS.
"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matt 7:23
They were a part of the CHosen People.
Chosen by GOD.
It was a CORPORATE convenant - with the entire NATION; not an individual one that we now embrace.
If Truth is too hard for you to carry, don’t lift it with your blanks or don’t beg others not to lift it.
You are quite right. Correct also in pointing out the mistake of extracting the mention of "babes" to suit the teachings of infant baptism.
My own precautionary pleadings are much connected to the use of the word "you", even as I otherwise find myself in general agreement with
It can be difficult to de-personalize the issue, sticking with the issue only. I confess to not being consistant my own self in this.
Thank you much for bringing the scriptural proofs. It helps serve that the passion behind the disagreement is not misplaced, nor born of hatred itself, but has much deeper roots, both of spirit, and as can be evidenced by logic, with the latter (the logic) being only the tip of the iceberg.
It will ... thank you. What you have done in claiming the cited passages have anything to do with infant baptism will provide weeks of Sunday School material in Biblical hermeneutics.
You have made all the errors that are possible.
Thanks for your time.
Baptism is a means of grace, commanded universally by our Lord. I have no real interest in continuing a battle from the 16th Century. I get that you don't consider that Baptism is a work of God. No problem. Thank you for the tone of your posting.
Oh?
Strange that HE did not mention it when asked a direct question...
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
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.