Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I was wondering what valid vs invalid baptism means according to the Catholic church. But since some may teach that the Bible is a book of myths and fables and may not believe Jesus existed as written, yes, why wouldn't some do whatever one wants even if the Church teachings go against that. Ok thanks for discussion.
Ok I looked the words spit, sputum and saliva up. It was another poster, Metis, who brought out that spittle can be used to baptize someone. I will try to use the word saliva henceforth. But the question still remains, what does it mean to have a valid or an invalid baptism? You brought out at the beginning several points. And one was that salvation may be at stake. That's kind of important but if a person believes the Bible is a book of myths and fables, how can salvation be truly entwined with valid or invalid baptism?
Wait a minute here. Ok later...
Superstitious nonsense? Relating to baptism and validity thereof?
That is not necessarily negative. My husband is an ex Roman Catholic would like to undo his baptism. I consider that silly, but if they used "we" instead of "I", that could save him a lot of red tape.
There's various factors that have the potential of making a baptism invalid, and this precedent is to be found in Acts, if my memory is correct, as those previously baptized had to be rebaptized to add Jesus; name.
Well, "myths" does not mean falsehood in the theological use of the term. Maybe look it up.
We all have free will.
You're not reading it in context, so please stop your trolling.
No. Even if you are sincere, unless you obey every letter of the law, use your right hand instead of your left hand, and never type there if you mean they're, or their, God will not allow you to pass go and enter into heaven. He's particular that way. At least that's the way many churches believe about God.
Frankly you didn't put it in context so if you're a teacher of these religious things I suggest you do put it in context. You made a vast statement. I can guess what you meant, but I'd rather you put it in context. That prompts me to ask if you believe Jesus existed as written in the Bible. Was he real as written and portrayed? If not, why even think about valid, or invalid baptisms, and their efficacy and significance. I am asking you legitimate questions about Jesus and baptism since you claim to be a teacher.
Surely we all have free will. Jesus did not teach that baptisms could be considered valid or invalid, did he? I'm sticking to the topic.
Really the question is if you think or teach that Jesus spoke the truth and nothing but. about Moses. And the Flood. It is linked to baptism. And... belief in Jesus and the truthfulness of his words.
He could write to the church and ask for his name to be removed from the list of baptized persons. Maybe there's a roster of Catholics somewhere. Not sure how it works. Maybe someone here knows who teaches about religion But if the wrong wording was used, I guess he might be able to save some ink and paper. He'd have to check which priest performed the baptism(?) and the wording. Maybe. Truly however, God knows what the truth is. Was he baptized as an infant or an adult?
Yes, but as I have explained so many times before to you, I am not a scriptural literalist. Why can't you seemingly remember that???
All organizations have procedures, and I would suggest baptism in Christianity is much more of a commitment to Christ than just how deep the water supposedly must be.
I am basically an honest person, so for you to throw "claim" into that sentence is insulting and un-Christian.
Again, the Flood narrative was probably mostly written to counter the much more widespread and earlier Babylonian narrative that was polytheistic.
The original practice of baptism in most cases involved adults confirming their faith in Jesus and then getting baptized. When infant baptism became the norm a few centuries later, the sacrament of baptism was split into two sacraments: baptism and confirmation. Baptism stands by itself as being a sacrament, but confirmation also enters one in as being an adult within the Church.
Where are you getting this stuff from?