• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is it necessary to be baptized as an adult, if you were baptized as a baby?

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That is not what you said, which was "For the dense ones. Catholics have imposed theire own wording for baptism, which carries a different meaning than the baptism set forth by the Apostles examples.".

BTW, I would be very careful implying that it's "dense ones" who may take a different position than you.

As far as infant baptism is concerned, you might consider what's written in Acts plus what baptism actually means in terms of what it theologically does.
I have thanks
 

Stalwart

Member
Read the bible and find out.

Matthew 28:19 -- Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The Catholic Church, in the tradition of the Apostles, and in accordance with the Gospel, baptises in this manner ('In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit').

Again, what on earth are you talking about?
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What are you talking about???
89.gif

Well for one example, I've been noticing that the preacher at a presbyterian church in Maryland has the exact same lessons on the exact same days as my nephew who goes to a Catholic church in Honduras. Coincidence? I don't think so.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well for one example, I've been noticing that the preacher at a presbyterian church in Maryland has the exact same lessons on the exact same days as my nephew who goes to a Catholic church in Honduras. Coincidence? I don't think so.
You are really not at all familiar with the process. Presbyterian ministers are educated and ordain in their own seminaries.

Many, if not all, Presbyterian churches follow a liturgical calendar that may have the same scriptural readings on at least some of the same Sundays as they do the Catholic Churches. I grew up in a fundamentalist Lutheran church, which also used a liturgical calendar, and sometimes the readings were the same as in the neighboring Catholic churches.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Matthew 28:19 -- Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The Catholic Church, in the tradition of the Apostles, and in accordance with the Gospel, baptises in this manner ('In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit').

Again, what on earth are you talking about?

Yeah I know you can cherry pick that and justify (to yourself) not mentioning the name of Jesus in your baptism. They don't say the name of the Son.

Paul explained: “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this,they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.…
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You are really not at all familiar with the process. Presbyterian ministers are educated and ordain in their own seminaries.

Many, if not all, Presbyterian churches follow a liturgical calendar that may have the same scriptural readings on at least some of the same Sundays as they do the Catholic Churches. I grew up in a fundamentalist Lutheran church, which also used a liturgical calendar, and sometimes the readings were the same as in the neighboring Catholic churches.

And they interpret them the same way as the Catholics, even saying the pope is the head of the Christian churches. To me they should go preach in the Catholic churches. I won't go to them.
 

Stalwart

Member
Yeah I know you can cherry pick that and justify (to yourself) not mentioning the name of Jesus in your baptism. They don't say the name of the Son.

Paul explained: “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this,they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.…

'In the name of' refers to authority. Just as we pray 'in Jesus' name', so do we baptise in His name, with the Trinitarian formula. Christ commanded us, very clearly, to baptise in this way. You are in opposition to the Early Church - how can you be so prideful as to think that your personal interpretation of scripture (translated over and over again) is superior to that of the millennia-old Apostolic Church?

*EDIT*
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Just curious on something. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as a baby, but when I left Christianity a few years ago and returned to it over a year ago, I feel like my faith is different for me, now. Like I ''own'' it, like it is truly a representative part of my life, without all the nonsense I had been indoctrinated to believe, growing up. Talking with a friend recently, she said that it would be good to be baptized again, because as a baby, we don't have the ability to offer our consent, but as adults, we do.

Pursuing my own ends, I was told by the Archbishop of the Kansas City diocese "once a Catholic always a Catholic." To the church, your baptism would thus still be valid. The thing that you'd seek to do would be confirmation.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Oh really?

So, these Protestant churches are all saying that the Pope is the head of their churches? Interesting.

Yep. I went to a bible study and the Protestant minister was absolutely convinced in the claimed Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Church.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
'In the name of' refers to authority. Just as we pray 'in Jesus' name', so do we baptise in His name, with the Trinitarian formula. Christ commanded us, very clearly, to baptise in this way. You are in opposition to the Early Church - how can you be so prideful as to think that your personal interpretation of scripture (translated over and over again) is superior to that of the millennia-old Apostolic Church?

Based on your other posts, it is clear to me that you are not all there. Psychosis, is it?
Yeah that's really weird that you interpret it like that. You pray in Jesus name? Who are you praying to? Allah? The real Apostles say you are baptized into Jesus name not baptized in Jesus name. Paul makes it clear.

Romans 6:3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

But I know im talking to a wall and you only listen to the Pope and his priests, not to Jesus and his Apostles.
 

Stalwart

Member
Yeah that's really weird that you interpret it like that. You pray in Jesus name? Who are you praying to? Allah? The real Apostles say you are baptized into Jesus name not baptized in Jesus name. Paul makes it clear.

Romans 6:3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

But I know im talking to a wall and you only listen to the Pope and his priests, not to Jesus and his Apostles.

Baptism brings us into the Body of Christ, His Church (1 Corinthians 12:13). We are baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, on Jesus' authority, to be brought into Jesus' Body.

Again, you are in opposition to the Fathers of the Early Church - why should anyone believe that you and your coven have suddenly and finally uncovered divine truth after thousands of years?
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Baptism brings us into the Body of Christ, His Church (1 Corinthians 12:13). We are baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, on Jesus' authority, to be brought into Jesus' Body.

Again, you are in opposition to the Fathers of the Early Church - why should anyone believe that you and your coven have suddenly and finally uncovered divine truth after thousands of years?

I can read English.

Matt 23:9 And don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father,' for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father.
 

Stalwart

Member
I can read English.

Matt 23:9 And don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father,' for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father.

No, not quite. Matthew 23:9, translated to English, most appropriately reads:

And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

There are three paternal ranks: Biological, Spiritual, and Heavenly. We address clerics, who function in persona Christi, as our leaders in the faith, and thereby as our spiritual fathers. We do not address any man or thing as heavenly father. The Apostle Paul refers to Timothy as his son twice - does this not make him Timothy's father in a sense?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yep. I went to a bible study and the Protestant minister was absolutely convinced in the claimed Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Church.
Many churches recognize "apostolic succession" as they should be cause it is both scriptural (as found in Acts and many of the epistles, although not using those same words) and historical. However, you should use "catholic church" in lower case because the CC is not the only church that recognizes this reality. If you can't recognize it, then it's not the Protestant minister that is missing something.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
No, not quite. Matthew 23:9, translated to English, most appropriately reads:

And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

There are three paternal ranks: Biological, Spiritual, and Heavenly. We address clerics, who function in persona Christi, as our leaders in the faith, and thereby as our spiritual fathers. We do not address any man or thing as heavenly father. The Apostle Paul refers to Timothy as his son twice - does this not make him Timothy's father in a sense?
And also the root words from which they are derived are different.
 
Top