Talk:Baptism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trinitarian Formula

I've got some beefs with the opening paragraphs:

Baptism is a Christian ritual or sacrament performed with water, applied 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit', by which the baptised person is incorporated into the life and the teachings of Christ, in the context of a Christian church.
Some feminist Christians refer to the persons of the Holy Trinity with more gender-neutral language, such as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer (or Sanctifier), and substitute this language.

Number one, the comment about the feminist POV is definitely important and belongs in this article (or perhaps another), but just doesn't belong up top like that. That's introducing secondary information before explaining the main point and reads like running off on a tangent.

Second of all, and this should help the other complaint, I don't believe the definitive statement that Christian baptism is performed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" should be made at all as a definition of baptism. There are quite a few Christian groups that don't accept the Trinity and/or perform baptisms simply saying "in the name of Jesus Christ," and some other variants. I'm not a member of any of these groups, but I run across them all the time. I think that statement should be moved down below, and then the feminist comment will not seem necessary at the top and can be moved down lower or into the Trinitarian formula page. Jdavidb 15:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alright; but there is also the fact that for most of us, the difference between getting wet and getting baptised, resides in the Trinitarian formula. Mkmcconn — 22:43, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The concern with Trinity -- in the Catholic Church at least -- is understanding baptism as being related to persons (the three persons in God). The reason that Father, Son, and Spirit MUST be used is the issue of immenant vs economic Trinity. At Baptism, one is incorporated INTO God -- ie, a relationship of persons. A dubium was sent to Rome asking about Baptism in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Question was as to validity of the baptism. Answer, negative. While the femine aspect of God is quite real, that isn't the issue in teh Sacrament in this case.Davescj 21:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The views of the Catholic church are not the sum total of the views of all Christian groups. The opening paragraphs are (or at least should be) a general definition, not a Catholic-only definition. As Oneness believers, our baptism is Jesus name is not Trinitarian baptism, nor can it be. Why should Catholic views be forced into the opening paragraphs to the exclusion of all other views? Keep the opening paragraphs general. I like the way it is currently worded. DougJoseph (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not NPOV

Most recent edit wasn't NPOV. Baptism for Christians may have been instituted by Jesus Christ, but John the Baptist was baptizing first, leading to several possible interpretations of who "instituted" it. Also, baptism seems to have been related to the previous Jewish rites of purification and/or conversion involving a Mikvah; I agree with the previous editor that you can't say baptism originated there, but there is some apparent connection. Moreover, the statement that baptism cleanses Original sin is VERY NPOV. Christians like myself don't even BELIEVE in Original sin. Meanwhile, I have no idea what the "indelible mark on the soul" is, but I've never heard it before in any claimed variant of Christianity. Obviously this is true within someone's religion, but it can't be claimed for all Christianity. Jdavidb 18:26, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed- to POV as it currently reads. -Visorstuff 00:22, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, while there are some aspects of the new introduction that could use some work, and broadening of reference if necessary, Visorstuff's version is not better. Mkmcconn — 02:25, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Please be more specific on why the revert - your explanation is too general. Baptism is not only a Christian/jewish ritual. my edits were to broaden the term to what is truly reflected. As it reads now, it is too centric to christianity. Please make the changes to broaden. I think it was better than before... -Visorstuff 13:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The reverted introduction reads:
Baptism is an initiation ordinance (see also sacrament) typically performed with water or in rare cases oil.
Although the rite is usually associated with Christianity, evidence of forms of baptism has appeared in many cultures, including ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, Jewish, Babylonian, Mayan and Japanese cultures, although such evidence is typically archaeological and descriptive in nature, rather than currently performed.
In Judaism and Christianity, baptism is typically performed with water through immersion or aspersion (sprinkling or dipping).
The fact of the matter is, baptism is almost always associated with Christianity. If the only exceptions that we can think of are "archaeological ... rather than currently performed", then they are a footnote, not introductory material. There are certainly other ritual baths, but as far as I know they are not ever called baptisms in English. Even if you ask a Jew, "have you been baptised?", you will be heard as asking, "have you converted to Christianity?", even though the two questions are not absolutely equivalent. Furthermore, you might be talking about chrismation, which is in some traditions is closely associated with baptism. Baptism with oil is rare enough that I've never heard of it: another footnote, rather than suitable to an introduction. Mkmcconn — 01:01, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought a more generalist approach describing what baptism was and who has performed it would remove recent controversy, but like your edits. However, I feel that the current intro is still POV. Again, good edits. -Visorstuff 06:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

new intro

I've tried to write a new intro. I recognize that there are a few groups that do not baptize using the "trinitarian formula"; but even counting those exceptions this is the most universal of all practices in the various churches. It is one thing that nearly all have in common. It doesn't seem right that because some depart even from this, that it should therefore be denied that Christian baptism is performed "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Mkmcconn — 16:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Emergency Baptisms

I put the information on emergency baptisms in the Catholic Church into its own subsection. That way people are aware of the fact, especially in situations where an infant would be in danger of death they can do it themselves instead of waiting for a priest.

JesseG 04:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I remembered that after seeing one episode of ER where the parents of a dying baby wanted the doctors to keep the baby alive long enough so that he could baptized. But the priest was so busy that it took a long time for him to get over to baptize the baby, the baby nearly died before he could do the baptism. I was thinking wait a minute, in an emergency can't they do it themselves?

JesseG 02:03, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, in emergency anyone can baptize. They only have to use water, the trinitarian formula, and intend to baptize. Dave

Question on Dave's clarification - If no actual water is available at an emergency baptism, can saliva (spit) be used in a pinch? Ed

Clarification on Ed's question - remember the Scripture that related Jesus' healing of a blind man by spitting into dirt to make mud, and rubbing the mud on the man's eyes. I haven't a Bible in front of me. I can tell you that emergency baptism using something that is substantially water is generally accepted. The Catechism doesn't say much on the substance of the baptismal water, but generally the idea of baptizing one who is near death is preferable to withholding the baptism for wont of Evian. I've heard anecdotes of broth, juice or wine being used, but I cannot confirm these. Thaddeus Ryan 18:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Re Ed's question. In the Catholic tradition, the answer would be saliva would be invalid matter. However, the Catholic Church accepts three forms of Baptism: water, blood (mayterdom) and desire. (want to, can't get water. In the case you suggest, the person would be considered baptized by desire if rational and old enough to choose, otherwise, would not be baptized but would be considered to go to heaven, since an infant by defintion can't sin.DaveTroy 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I made some slight changes in the emergency baptism section. One to be more clear (I hope I was) and a couple of additions. ONte was matter (water) and the second was conditional baptism. Obviously, conditional baptism is not the norm. However, neither is it usually necessary to perform one. In most cases, the priest (or deacon) will simple ask how, who performed the baptism and ask their intentions. If everything is fine, no conditional baptism takes place.DaveTroy 19:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

history and linguistics

Could someone write something about the history of baptism - how and why was it practiced in pre-NT times and cultures, how was it practiced in NT times and what are the meanings of the original words used in various languages (eg. greek)? --charon 13:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The word Baptize comes from the Greek and, as many words do in Greek, it encompasses a concept: To plunge something entirely into the water, so that the water closes over it. The most ancient traditions insist on total emersion, the logic being, one doesn’t wash clothes by sprinkling them with water, but by submerging them completely, and so to wash away sins one must be buried in the water as Christ was buried, and rise again as He also rose from the dead.Phiddipus 02:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanx, it would be nice if it was a part of the article, but in some broader form - like a linguistic research with examples and comparations with other texts and occasions of usage. The historical part might include some archeological findings of "baptistries" in ancient buildings where christians met. --charon 10:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I read an old technical book once that cited every reference of the word baptize (and its forms) that is found in Greek literature. It was interesting to see how the word was used. Those texts were using the Greek word in a normal, literal sense, not in a metaphorical sense. But, when the English word "baptize" is used in the English translation, it is easy to read into the Greek text our current connotations of the term. But to do so distorts the actual meaning of the texts. For example, in sea battles ships were "baptized" (they sank). Soldiers "baptized" their swords in their enemies (they stuck their swords clear into their enemies). People were "baptized" in sorrow (they were overwhelmed by sorrow). In all of the secular Greek uses of the word that were listed in the book (and the book claimed to have every instance cited), the term always designated a complete submersion of one object into something else. From this the following observations are made:
(1) The term is a common, non-liturgical term that does not imply an religious or ceremonial activity, unless the context itself explicitly indicates such a meaning. (2) The term in its normal meaning always designates a complete submersion or enveloping of one thing into another. (Of course, individuals could always extend the meaning of the term in a technical sense to indicate something else. But the context always needs to make that extension clear.) (3) The term does not suggest whether or not the submerged item is ever extracted from the medium into which it has been submerged. Context might answer the question, however, or it might leave the issue unclear. For example, when the ship was "sunk/baptized", we may safely assume that it stayed submerged. (4) The view of a few grammarians who argue that the "-izo" ending of the Greek verb means to repeated do something, is simply not valid with this verb. The ship was not repeatedly sunk; it simply sank one time. (I came across this view years ago among some who tried to argue that the Great Commission teaching on baptism implies what they call "trine-immersion" or the three-fold dunking of the person --once each in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The evidence shows that they were "using" --abusing-- Greek grammar to prove / manufacture their point. While the practice of the early church may indeed support trine immersion, the grammar adds nothing to it; such misuse of the Greek was very disappointing.) Chad A. Woodburn 8:33 am EST, Dec. 21, 2004 (the first hour of winter).
This is a very interesting point, thank you. Could you please give us reference to that book? In other languages it is similar. My language also has a manufactured arbitrary term for baptism rather than the correct translation. I've never heared of trine immersion, however the word for "name" in the phrase "in the name of the father..." is in singular, so it does not stand as a reason for 3 immersions. It would also defeat the symbolism of union with Christ's burial and ressurection.--charon 17:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Charon, no, I no longer recall the name of the book. I read it in the seminary library at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. If you really need the reference, perhaps you could contact the seminary librarian there and ask that person to find the book. It was a book on all the references in Greek where the word occurs. It seems to me (this was a few decades ago) that the book was written in the late 1800s by a baptist.

Chad A. Woodburn 8:33 am EST, Dec. 21, 2004 (the first hour of winter).


The tradition of Three-Fold emersion, which is the most ancient Christian form of baptism springs from the apostolic tradition, which St Matthew later put into his Gospel:
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Phiddipus 16:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can you prove it historically? How do you get the three-times immersion and rising from the text? Is it based on the three "names"? Isn't just one name mentioned in the greek original? "...baptizing them in the name of the..." (not in the names) And what would be the symbolism of dying and rising with Christ? Did he die and rise three times or once?--charon 17:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Charon, the practice of trine immersion is indeed historically the original pattern. I believe you will find the practice mentioned in the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). The book I mentioned before which was written by a baptist (who did not follow that practice) recognized the historicity of trine immersion as the pattern. As for the symbolism of dying and rising with Christ, etc., it must be remembered that the baptism that Jesus and His disciples administered predated His death, burial, and resurrection. The point of this is that baptism is first of all a "purification" ritual, and only secondarily reflects dying and rising with Christ. Chad A. Woodburn 8:33 am EST, Dec. 21, 2004 (the first hour of winter).
Thanx, I'll look up the references. However, Didache is not an authoritative writing and theoretically may introduce new teaching after the original command of Jesus and teaching of the apostles. "Baptism predated His death" - Priddipus was arguing with the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and those designate the baptism that followed Christ's death, burial and ressurection. This is the baptism that Jesus commanded after He rose: it unites you with Him and you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (unlike the preceding baptisms). Maybe other prior baptisms were trine immersions, but we're talking here about the last one. Baptism's purification is done by uniting the person with the christ's blood and with him dying with Christ, so you can't separate them. Btw. do you consider a single immersion valid? If not, on what grounds?--charon 13:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed Text from Main Article

The matter and form of baptism

This is really weird text. Major NPOVing needed. So flagrant that I removed it from the article. Please look over it. I'm going to take some hacks at it myself sometime. Ambush Commander 00:00, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Most Protestant sects have never objected to or denied that Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Christ.... (cut remainder. It's as much a copyvio from [1] here as in the article)

OK, a few things I don't understand, what is conciliar baptism? In the current Catholic rite of baptism, a single person baptizes. I can't find any reference to the objections you speak of. The rite is quite clear that baptism removes original sin. It is also clear that baptism incorporates one into the body of Christ. That is not new with Vatican II. As to the infant, we would presume baptism by desire, since the child was unbaptized. And since neither hell nor purgatory would be logical, we presume in God's infinate mercy the Child goes with God. The Order of Funerals covers this topic. As to validity of baptism, you don't even need to eb Christian to baptize, only to use water, Trinitarian formula, and intend to baptize. If you can help me understand better what you are saying, I would be interested.DaveTroy 08:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Apostolic" baptism?

The writer has applied his peculiar interpretive tradition here as if it was the only one possible, besides citing a number of irrelevant texts, yet other Christian groups obviously don't interpret these verses the same way. This appears to non-NPOV since it's presenting an opinion as if it were objcetive fact. I'll remove it unless there are any reasonable objections over the next day or two. Csernica 18:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Some references on the web, to large christian groups that believe this:



Perhaps editting is more appropriate than outright removal.

Well, that's a reasonable objection right there! Csernica 22:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree that different Baptismal practices need to be included, so editing to remove POV and yet reflecting the different opinion is needed. -Visorstuff 16:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Baptism

Contrary to the following paragraph, Baptism is an ordinance given to the church and therefore may only be administered by the church. An individual may not baptize himself/herself, nor may their parents.


Baptism is something that you freely chose to do or your parents if you are still young. Anyone can have baptism if they believe in Christ. They have to believe fully in Christ to fully recieve a sacrament. If they don't then they still recieve the sacrament but not fully in the eyes of God and the three persons. Baptism is the act of Christ he did not have to go into the Jordan and get baptized. He was free from original sin so that means he and anyone else that was free from it which where only him, his mother Mary and God. Jesus did it so that he could show us how to recieve the sacrament of Baptism to free original sin. There is two kinds of baptism if they die before they recieve the sacrament. They are Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Baptism of Desire is when someone dies, but they desire baptism or if a baby dies or child and they haven't recieved the sacrament of baptism yet then if their parents wish is to baptize their child then the child is bapized. Baptism of Blood is when you give up your life for Christ and you kinda get baptized in your own blood as you die. Baptism of Blood is not really used today in life. Baptism is needed to go to heaven and so are most of the other sacraments.

only His blood saves

Baptism cannot save anyone or wash away sins; only the blood Jesus can do that. Sin removal requires a blood sacrifice, which Jesus gave us. Water only washes the outside, not the inside; a washing that ALL of us need.

With respect, and I agree that it is Christ who saves, the NT Gospel commands to baptize. This same action is mandated multiple times by Paul in his letters. Therefore, this article logically does fall under Christianity. DaveTroy
Can we stop with the preaching please and reserve this page for discussing article content and changes? This is extremely tiresome. Those of us who don't share your religious views don't want to hear it, and those who do already know it. (Besides, see Rom 6:3, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for keeping us on focus. A religion, among other things, is a system of beliefs, and where there is one disagreement between two systems there must be others, as each independent system must maintain its own logicial internal cohesion. Therefore, I suggest any further arguments against Baptism of any form belong within the appropriate ideological entry. Baptism is an institution, not a controversy, and it does very little good to include pros and cons on every single issue - for instance, to include a "Why ____ are wrong" section where ______ refers to a religion, ideology, or culture.Thaddeus Ryan 18:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I regard to original comment - Colossians 2:12 makes it abundantly clear that baptism is the participation in Jesus' death burial and resurection. CdHess 19:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox - Distinctive Difference - the Efficacy of Baptism

Concerning the Eastern Orthodox approach to baptism we must realistically present the Orthodox Church’s canonical point of view, not the opinion of some who seek to gloss over the very real differences between the Orthodox and the rest of Christianity. First of all, the Orthodox do not recognize the validity of any baptism other than an Orthodox one. Roman Catholics are considered by the Orthodox to be completely outside the church and therefore do not possess the grace of God necessary to make the baptism effectual. This is not a popular thing to say but it is the truth. The Orthodox do not consider any other Christian denomination to be part of the Church, therefore how could a Non-Orthodox baptism be construed as acceptance into the Church? When, for instance, a Roman Catholic joins the Orthodox Church, the rubrics of the Church not only call for him to be baptized, but that he must renounce his allegiance to the RC, formally and publicly. Secondly, while it is true that any Orthodox Christian in an emergency can baptize, it is generally accepted that if the “baptizee” survive the emergency, that a Priest will perform the service of baptism for the individual at the earliest possible moment. This is not considered to be a “Re-Baptism” or a second baptism, but rather a baptism of “Economia” to correct the “Form” of the Mystery. Anyone desirous of joining the Orthodox Church is, in essence, baptized in their Heart the moment they have made such a decision. If they die before the Mystery can be performed in Form, that person is still considered Orthodox. It is in the heart and soul that the love of God resides. Never the less, the Form is important and cannot be disregarded except where it is impossible to be performed. Thirdly, it is not uncommon in this day of modern innovation for a priest to have his opinions influenced by non-Orthodox ideas and practices. The Orthodox do not accept sprinkling as a proper form of baptism, yet many Orthodox practice this. It is not therefore, unacceptable, when one joins a more traditional branch of the Orthodox Church to have one’s baptism “Corrected” by “Economia”. Once again, this is not considered to be a second baptism, nor does it imply that the person was not part of the Church, but rather, that the form used was not canonically acceptable and needed correction. This last area is not a black and white area and requires the careful judgment of a bishop in order to administer. Such cases are very delicate in nature and are never taken lightly.--Phiddipus 1 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)


Having re-read the article, there remains a problem in trying to speak of Orthodox and non-Orthodox in the same parragraph. I cannot speak for anyone but the Orthodox Church, but seeing how the Orthodox reject all the other Christian denominations as either heretics or schismatics, it likewise does not recognize the validity of their “Sacraments” which are not performed by Orthodox clergy or even members of the Orthodox Church. This may be an unpopular viewpoint in the annals of world church politics and it is not meant to say that only the Orthodox are Christians. What it says is that membership in the Orthodox Church through baptism can only be accomplished by the Orthodox. While the form is important, it is not a magical formula, non-Orthodox following the form do not somehow magically create Orthodox Christians even though they themselves are not Orthodox. The baptism and indeed the sacraments of all other Christian denominations are meaningless to Orthodox. The grace of God is given to Orthodox clergy through the laying on of hands and attaches to apostolic succession; no other church is accepted as having this. Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, are not members in any way of the Orthodox Church, they do not confess to believe exactly what we believe, they are not in communion with us, therefore their rites and rituals have no significance with us. If at one time they were members of the church (1000 years ago), they are broken away, their apostolic succession is broken, and the Grace of God, as we Orthodox understand it, is no longer present within them. This may not be a very PC thing to say out loud, but it is the truth as far as the Orthodox are concerned. Phiddipus 14:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It's becuase of systematic problems of this nature that I added the "Attention" tags. The article is in need of a massive refactoring. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

United Pentecostal Church

I reverted edits by an anonymous user who added a lengthy section on the United Pentecostal Church. I've nothing against that perspective being part of the article, but the material was really long, not wikified, POV, and was pretty much just verbatim from a tract by that denomination (possible copyright issue?). If anyone wishes to add info from this perspective, please do so, but be concise, write in "wiki language", be NPOV, and be original. Thanks. KHM03 18:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

de-baptism

is it possbile to become de-baptised? Or do you just renounce your faith and it doesnt even matter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.234.213.64 (talk • contribs) 68.234.213.64.

Technically no. Some churches allow re-baptism, and would suggest that on occasion, an individual could do things so sinful that they would need to be re-baptized to eliminate all thier sins. Many churches, however, believe that Baptism imparts a spiritual "seal" on the individual, and can never be undone. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, does not rebaptize, as the point of baptism is the removal of original sin, which can never be returned. A secondary effect is to eliminate personal sins, however, this can be done through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (often called confession), so a baptism is not needed to forgive personal sins.

There would be no need for a de-baptism (the only effect of which would be to reinstate the sins previously forgiven) and as the real point of baptism is to forgive sins, which is something God does, and once He forgives them, they are forgiven forever. In short, no, no de-baptism, but perhaps re-baptism if allowed. -- Essjay · Talk 18:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to note that some Christian denominations do not require converts who were previously baptized to be re-baptized. However, this is not entirely transitive, ie the Catholic church will accept a Pentecostal's baptism as legitimate but a Pentecostal church may or may not accept the Catholic baptism as legitimate. The underlying reason is generally a difference of the age of baptism in the original denomination, the language and method of the baptism, and whether the receiving denomination recognizes the language, method and age as being legitimate. Thaddeus Ryan 18:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Baptism - the reason for the confusion

Why can't the churches/denominations agree on baptism? Jesus Christ promised that when we hold to His Teaching we become His disciples and His Truth will set us free, Jn 8. When Jesus Christ was baptized in physical water by John the Baptist, He was fulfilling the OT Law for those who repent and believe in Him. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance but Jesus Christ had nothing to repent of, He had no sin! If we do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ, God's Word, came in sinless human flesh to perfectly fulfill all of the OT Law for us, including all physical water baptisms, then we will never understand the rest of His saving Gospel Truth, 2Jn. For a short summary of this critical Truth, read Ro 1:16-20; Mt 3; Mk 1:14-15; Mt 5:17-20; Mt 6:1,31-33; Mt 11:12-15; Ro 3:21-24; Gal 4:4-7; Ro 7:4-6; Gal 3:6-10. Failure to acknowledge and declare the righteousness of the Son of God will result in spiritual blindness. This is why the churches/denominations do not understand the one and only true baptism of the Holy Spirit of God, the one and only baptism we must have to be born again, born from above, Ac 1:4-5; Eph 4:1-7; 2Pe 1-3. This is why the churches/denominations do not understand God's definition of Grace. No one will receive God's Grace unless they first receive His righteousness through faith, a faith as Abraham had, Ro 1-8. God's many warnings, in both the OT and NT about those who would rebel against His Word, have come true. Today's churches/denominations, their colleges and seminaries indeed have a form of godliness but deny His power, 1Ti 4; 2Ti 3-4. Not one organized church/denomination understands who God is, they can't, they have not been enabled because they have denied the righteousness of God's Son thereby denying the righteousness of Almighty God, Lk 10:21-24. Study the words, "righteous" and "righteousness" in the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Prophets and the entire NT. Those who believe in physical water baptisms of any kind cannot be saved, they have followed another gospel that is no gospel at all, 2Co 11:12-15; Gal 1:6-12. Salvation begins with Living Water, God's Word in Spirit and in Truth, Jn 7:37-39, never physical water. This is very critical information that no one can prove wrong; it is not wrong, Lk 21:15. God said He would destroy the wisdom of this world and He has done exactly that, 1Co 1-3. For lots of free Biblical proof, just email me at canawedding@aol.com. Canawedding 10:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Friend, I admire your zeal. I must suggest, though, that this is not quite the point of this article. An encyclopedia walks the fine line of presenting an institution as it is in whatever form it exists - especially one that exists under scrutiny and controversy - while simultaneously remaining neutral and avoiding proselytization. May your ministry bless many. Thaddeus Ryan 18:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Baptism is not "Physical water." Baptism is essential to savlation as Romans 3:25 makes clear that faith in his blood is what is first needed. Next, Romans 6:3-7 shows that we are buried with Christ in baptism and forgiven of our sins through Jesus' death burial and resurection. Acts 2:38 also makes clear that repentance must precede baptism and that baptism forgives your sin since baptism is actually the death, burial and resurrection with Christ. 1 Peter 3:21 makes abundantly clear baptism does save you, it is not just the removal of dirt. How can you make all of the above claims and yet leave out these important scriptures.

In the end, I agree with Thaddeus Ryan in that this is an encyclopeida and that there are differences of opinion on the subject of baptism, therfore all views need to be explained in an encyclopeida. CdHess 19:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixed marriage and baptism of children

It's bewildering to me how some Catholic kids are given a primary and secondary education in private Catholic Schools, costing their parents thousands of dollars in tuition fees. They are baptized by a priest, confirmed by a bishop, but later, as young adults, they marry a person of another faith but have no regard for baptism of their own offsprings. Attending Mass becomes irrelevant. Instead, the child is brought up to excel in contact sports. These kids begin to crave the cheers and applause of the spectators who attend the games they play. This seems like a pathway to the mundane and materialistic aspects of life. Musicwriter 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Catholic school children never come out anymore christian than public school ppl. Most of the time they come out worse.

Attention tag

I have added the attention tag because as it stands this article is a jumbled mess. There was a strong attempt to combine Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist practices into a single section. While the theology behind baptism in these cases are similar in many ways, they are sufficiently different -- and the practices are so widely at variance -- that it has resulted a completely misleading and useless section. Nearly every sentence has to be qualified, and where they are not they are very often simply inaccurate, with the practices peculiar to one group claimed for all the others. Perhaps following a brief introduction to the section summarizing where they are the same, each group needs to be treated seperately in its own subsection. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this template from the article head. It was added on 25 October 2005 and the article has received substantial attention since then. The template was largely unhelpful and no specific problem has been identified. - mholland 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No specific problem was identified because the problems were systematic. Some of what needed to be addressed were taken care of, but many weren't, especially in the "Conditions of the validity of a baptism" subsection, but I'm not going to argue about it. The problem is much less widespread than it once was. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

indelible

In Baptism, for Catholics, Baptism makes an indelible mark. That is to say one that is on the soul that cannot be removed. Therefore, it is never repeated. Even if the person leaves Christianity, if they return they are not re baptized. They merely confess their sin, and at absolution are re admitted to full communion in the Church.

Dave

The same is true for United Methodism. KHM03 21:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

The list of external links here is much longer than appears to be indicated per WP:EL:


It seems to me that at least some of these should be Wikilinks to proper discussions (e.g. the LDS, much as I hate to encourage yet more LDS articles) rather than being what is, in essence, offsite forks. Some of the sites appear to be personal points of view. I know it's more difficult in this case than in some others. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me a great many of these are covered under number 4 at WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to. Like Eucharist, this is a very large subject with a wide variance in what is believed about it, and these links all appear representative of real viewpoints. No doubt the article already represents some of these, but I'm not sure it represents all of them. I'm reasonably certain that more than one of them were used as references, which is covered under number 2 above.TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
But the variety of opinon can and should be covered in the article, not by linking to dozens of external sites. Those which are references should of course be included and listed as such.
The real problem here is that once the list of lnks gets above a certain length it becomes difficult to discern which are "official" views and which are just personal takes on it. Also, the more links there are, the more likely it is that individual vanity links will get added (and missed).
You may well be right that many of these are relevant. But I am sure that others are either not relevant, not authritative or are duplicates (in that the persoective is covered in other articles). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It may be appropriate to come to an understanding here as to what is appropriate (of course, respecting WP guidelines). For instance, I think it is reasonable to have a link or two from the Catholics, a link or two from the Orthodox, a link or two from the Methodists, a link or two from the Baptists, etc. These are major groups which deserve mention. KHM03 13:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Being bold again and restoring link or two in this manner. Dominick (TALK) 13:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Reviewing the current list, that does seem reasonable; I get carried away sometimes. I might tweak the text so it is a bit more consistent (picky!). One question: why two Catholic ones? Catholic Encyclopedia seems authoritative and complete. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be 2 Catholic, 2 Orthodox, etc.; that was merely a suggestion. I suppose if one really good representative link is found, then one is OK. KHM03 13:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I restructured a bit; not sure if it's better or worse. Feel free to change. KHM03 13:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I debated doing that. Lets see if it works. Dominick (TALK) 14:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Sound in principle, a bit clunky in rendering. I wonder if we should use formatting rather than headings to make it a bit tighter? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Make it so. KHM03 22:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

With everyone's consent, I'm going to add back in bebaptized.org as representative of the Church of Christ in "Other groups." However, I'll leave out the pejorative "Campbellite." Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

mikvah

I read the opening line that states "and has its origins with the Jewish ritual of mikvah.", and I also read the linked article on the Jewish mikvah, but the relationship is not apparent.

The Jewish mikvah does not require a priest to be present - an individual washes him or herself, and this washing can be repeated by themselves as required, which contrasts with Christian Baptism, which is preformed by a priest on an initiate, and then only once. I cannot see why is there a claim that Baptism originated from mikvah.

The action of ritual bathing seems to have its origin with the mikvah, but the significance has totally changed. John the Baptist shifted the emphasis from ritual cleanliness to moral cleanliness: it was a "baptism of repentence". Christianity took John's baptism and added to it the meaning of being joined to the death, and resurrection of Christ. Strictly speaking baptism doesn't require a priest either, and some groups don't even require the person administering it to be a Christian.
Still, a reference would be nice.
I am transferring this to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads should go. The simplest way to do this is to click on the "+" next to "Edit this page", which prompts you for a topic name and then adds your post to the bottom automatically. Also, you should sign posts to talk pages. An easy way to do this is to type 4 tildes (~~~~) which signs your username with a link to your user page and a timestamp. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Two small edits.

Reading over this article I saw a couple of things I thought needed clarification.

Under "Baptist and other Protestant baptism" it said that "a wide variety of other Protestant denominations deriving from the Anabaptist tradition, including Mennonites and Pentecostals." I changed that to "some Pentecostals" as not all of us do follow the Baptist interpretation.

Under "Baptism in Churches of Christ" there was a statement that said no one taught that receiving the Holy Spirit meant receiving such gifts of the Spirit as speaking in tongues. Rewritten to make it clearer that the Chruch of Christ does not teach this (other churches do).

David Bird

Emergency Baptism cont.

In one such case, antifreeze from a car radiator was used under extraordinary necessity, and declared valid.

Could somebody please dig out the source of that?

Seems purely anecdotal. Baptismal 'water' must be substantially that. Broth, juice, wine have been used, but antifreeze is ethelyne glycol. It'd seem easier, anyway, to use precipitation or condensation from the air conditioning coils.Thaddeus Ryan

Yes, antifreeze isn't water. But the Catholic Church has said, that, in an emergency, if you're not sure whether something's water or not, use it anyway.--Gazzster 06:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Even in an emergency, the matter would be invalid. Only TRUE WATER (aquae verae) is valid matter for the sacrament (cf can. 849). The Holy See has said that urine, blood (not martyerdom), fruit juice, saliva, etc are INVALID matter, even in cases of necessity. In those instances, baptism of desire would take place.DaveTroy 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That is true. But I was looking at a situation where a person has a subjective difficulty in distinguishing what is regarded as valid matter from invalid matter. Sometimes it is tricky to determine what is 'true water'. Do we mean pure water? Mixed with something else? Ice? Steam? The meaning of what is 'true water' may vary from person to person and from society to society. The Roman Catholic Church considers the sacrament so important that even doubtful matter, even probably doubtful matter, may be used sub condicione. I did not have the example of antifreeze specifically in mind. I was thinking of something like thin broth or tea, where the authenticity of the matter is harder to ascertain.--Gazzster 13:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My POV for broth would be invalid as the substance has radically changed, for example the same reason Coke (or similar) would be invalid. While club soda (water with gas) would be valid, as it is still water, basically the matter has not changed. Ice and steam are both water, but would need to be liquified sufficiently for "washing" (water moving) over the head. I would consider tea doubtful, adn would re-baptize personally (again the nature of the matter has been changed). Woestman in his commentary defines water as "whatever is commonly and ordinarily understood as water" (Woestman, Sacraments Intiation, Penance, Annointing of the Sick, Ottawa, St Pauls Univeristy Press 2004, pg 37) The Holy See has given the following as examples of "water" -- sea water, well water, natural spring water, and other similar things. But notice in all cases, the water is natural -- that is not mixed with anything. The 1917 code used the words "true and natural" to get at the same concept.85.20.110.17 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

ummm...I was just wondering when the need would be so great that anti-freeze would be necessary. I mean where are these people when these things are happening? 66.57.109.162 (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)taylor schneider

Two questions about Catholic Baptism

1. Didn't the Catholic Church substantially reverse itself on unbaptized infants in the last year or so? 2. Hasn't the Catholic Church abandoned the "baptism is necessary" track, or at least heavily altered it? (I know that Catholic theologians have been very vocal of late about the claim that you don't have to be Catholic to be saved) Phil Sandifer 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Not as far as I know. The Catechism says, essentially, we have no idea what happens, but trust in God's mercy; previously, it was thought that they couldn't go to Heaven, so they'd end up in Limbo, a place of perfect physical happiness but no spiritual happiness. The Catholic Church teaches that for all we know, that might still be true, but we hope and trust that God has means of allowing them into Heaven.
2. No to both. As the article states, baptism by desire or blood can replace "ordinary" baptism, but something of the sort is still needed, as far as we know. (NB: "Catholic theologians" don't count as "the Catholic Church" - a given theologian can say anything, but until explicitly approved, it's just them saying it.)
--Cheyinka 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

About Limbo - The present Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger has stated, notably in an interview published as The Ratzinger Report (1986) that Limbo has no basis in the Scriptures. It was an idea developed in the Middle Ages to explain what happens to infants who die before baptism. As such it is not a teaching that commands compulsion of belief in the Catholic Church. As Cheyinka states, it is, from a doctrinal position, sounder to commend them to the mercy of God.--Gazzster 00:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref Phil's question, not the Church has not changed on the requirement of baptism for salvation. The question of those unbaptized and their salvation is discussed and understood apart from the normal sacramental process.85.20.110.17 11:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about "Part of the series on Latter Day Saints"

why is Baptism, a general topic, a part of the series on Latter Day Saints? wahlau 16 April 2006

Revoking baptism?

Does anyone know if it's possible to revoke a baptism, and, if so, how? -Christiaan 00:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Revoke someone else's? No. One might become excommunicated, but reconciliation to the Church after that does not involve another baptism. Renounce your own? You can. But in that case, again you do not get rebaptized if you change your mind later. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well you can renounce anything at a personal level I guess. I'd like to know if there's any formal process that somebody can go through to revoke their baptism (and Confirmation for that matter). Do you know of any? -82.35.13.121 12:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
One cannot undo what is done, One cannot turn back the clock. One can only change direction.--Phiddipus 06:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a story from the desert fathers (2nd century) that answers this question. There was a boy who was born, baptized and raised a Christian. He fell in love with the daughter of a pagan priest. He asked this man for his daughters hand in marriage. The priest consulted his pagan gods (who in fact, were demons) and asked them if it was possible for this Christian to marry his daughter. They told him to have the boy renounce his Christianity and offer sacrifice to them. Amazingly, when the boy was given this task, he immediately renounced Christ and offered up libations to the pagan “demon” gods. The father then consulted his “gods” once again – could the boy now marry his daughter? But the demons replied that despite his having renounced Christ, the Holy Spirit still enshrouded the boy and would not release him. Once a Christian, nothing the boy could do would change that. When the father saw the awesome power of Christ and heard from his own demons their lack of power, the pagan priest immediately renounced his false gods in favor of the one true God. The boy later repented of his sin, seeing the profound change in the father of his beloved. He realized that though he had abandoned Christ, Christ never abandoned him. --Phiddipus 03:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is similar to the question of whether the sacrament of Holy Orders - i.e., the priesthood - can be revoked. The short answer, according to Catholic teaching, is that it can not, as the recipient is considered to have been indelibly marked by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament, which can not be revoked by any earthly authority, including the Church itself.
Thus, even though a priest may be "laicized", "defrocked" or "kicked out of the priesthood" as in the well known sexual abuse scandals of recent years, he nonetheless remains a priest and in certain extraordinary cases (principally those involving persons in danger of immediate death), he has not only the right but the duty to exercise his priestly office. But routine exercise of the priestly office is forbidden and would be a grave sin for the laicized priest. Interestingly, even though marriage or any other sacrament routinely performed by such a person would be illicit it would nonetheless be canonically valid. This doctrine is summarized by the tag phrase "once a priest, always a priest".
The same logic applies to Baptism, which is why the Church rejects re-baptism of adults who have converted to Catholicism from other denominations which it considers to possess canonically valid sacraments, e.g. the Eastern Orthodox Church.

On Orthodox Acceptance of Non-Orthodox Baptism

The paragraph, as it currently stands, sounds a lot like posturing. If the baptism of Non-Orthodox utilizes the same form as Orthodox, yet the Orthodox do not believe the Non-Orthodox baptism has grace, then there would be no reason whatsoever to forgo performing a proper Orthodox baptism. If, on the other hand, a convert is allowed to believe his Non-Orthodox baptism is in some way acceptable then I warrant that the clergy involved have made a grave error and denied the very faith they claim to support. I am, of course, not overlooking “economia” as a means of correcting “incorrectly done” baptisms, but I think this applies to questions of incorrectly done Orthodox baptisms, not those of Non-Orthodox.--Phiddipus 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I largely wrote that paragraph as it stands, if memory serves. I'm aware of the controversy, but we're not here to present one side's or another's "correct" vision of things, but only to report matters as they are. Whether you agree with the reasoning or not, this is how it's done in churches of the Russian tradition and this is the reasoning for it. Nor is this a recent innovation: Chrismation was the method by which (for example) Roman Catholics and Lutherans were directed to be received long before the Russian Revolution. The OCA does it that way because the service books it inherited from Russia say to do it that way. I don't know the history behind why they say that, but have only been told the reasoning behind it. I don't need to know the history to report the current practice.
For what it's worth, the Greeks and Russians have almost never agreed on this. Back when the Greeks were receiving Roman Catholics by chrismation, the Russians were baptizing them. Now the situation is reversed.
In any event, I carefully tried to include both sides of the issue without passing judgment on either. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Conditions of the validity of a baptism

Is it worth mentioning that the Roman Catholic Church no longer considers Mormon baptisms valid? --Cheyinka 06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Cheyinka, that interests me. Do you have details?--Gazzster 06:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Straight dope here: [2] Goldfritha 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed LDS tag

I removed the "LDS" tag from the section talking about baptism in the LDS church. It was the only religion sidebar in the article. If it were included, we might as well have each religion's giant sidebar tag in every single section in the article, leading to anarchy and a hard to read article. Tempshill 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction, there was 1 other sidebar, "Panj Pyare", which I just removed for the same reason. Article is now free of sidebars. Tempshill 22:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Baptism of Desire

In Catholic Theology, baptism of desire not only refers to catechumens, as the article says, but to any person desiring baptism who cannot, for whatever reason, obtain baptism by water. This desire might be explicit, in the case of a non-Christian who believes he must be baptised to be saved, or even implicit, in the case of a non-Christian, who, through no fault of his own, does not realise the necessity of baptism yet desires union with God. This teaching can be found in standard Catholic texts.--Gazzster 07:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian baptism as a sacrament

Sacrament as defined in the Anglican and Roman catechism - "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace".

Outward sign - water; inward grace - the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit".

This is apparently the first effect of baptism. It seems to me that this, in effect what baptism is supposed to achieve spiritually, isn't really mentioned in the article - it is glossed over as being a matter of dispute - while only the secondary effects (salvation from sin, integration into the Church) get stated. Can I add this to the denominational paragraphs to bring out this important point? Or does this come under NPOV rules?

I'd like to put in a link to "Catechumen", which has information on what may happen before baptism and the need for belief to precede it. OK?

Jeremynicholas 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparative Summary

I formatted the comparitive summary - and copyedited anything I have knowledge of - I think there is probably a need to copy edit other rows. I am not sure on whether this is useful - or somthing that will be difficult to maintain as neutral --Trödel 05:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Another note - the cited reference for this section does not seem to be verifiable. --Trödel 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Updated entries on Episcopalian practice and belief. Someone else may want to figure out how to insert reference near the chart. http://www.holycross.net/anonline.htm CAHeyden 04:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited row on Anglican Communion. First, the placing of the word "sign" as quoted in the 39 Articles in bold was misleading in that it suggested a purely representational interpretation of the word "sign," especially as the following words "whereby as by an instrument" were left out. "Sign" should be interpreted in an Augustinian sense as conferring the grace represented. Second, the column on baptismal regeneration was changed from "no" to "yes" in keeping with the above. Cf Article 27 of the 39 Articles (read carefully - notice that it is in fact arguing against a view of baptism as only a "mark of difference"); the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (Public Baptism of Infants: "We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit"); the Catechism of the American 1979 Book of Common Prayer ("The inward and spiritual grace in Baptism is union with Christ in his death and resurrection, birth into God's family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit") and the Thanksgiving over the Water in the baptismal service of the same ("We thank you, Father, for the water of Baptism. ... Through it we are reborn by the Holy Spirit..."); as well as the Cheney trial (see Britannica.com: the Cheney Trial)

Flybane (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Baptize or baptize

The Catholic Church teaches that the use of the verb "baptize" (or "baptize") is essential.

What was the second one supposed to say? "Baptise"? Marnanel 13:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Baptism in Norse Culture

A pagan rite of "sprinkling with water" for newborn infants is mentioned in Egil's saga and in Njal's saga as well as various other writings. The instances cited occur in pagan households, prior to the introduction of Christianity to Iceland.

Roman Catholicism

The reverts by Lima look good, given that this page compares details of different baptisms in a cursory way. Most of the other sacraments have individual pages, so I'll likely start a Baptism (Catholic Church) page today. Freder1ck 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

I see that the page I was looking at earlier had been mostly blanked, leaving only the comparative summary. That makes things quite different. Freder1ck 19:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The reference to increased popularity of immersion among Catholics is interesting. I know many parishes that feature small pools like the one shown in the photo of St. Raphael Cathedral. However, these pools are not deep enough to practice full immersion, in which the head and body are immersed in water; instead, the baptisms that I have seen are better described as pouring (drenching), but over the whole body instead of just the head. It would be more accurate perhaps to say that "forms of immersion" "the idea of immersion" are becoming more popular. I just found the following article discussing recent changes: Adoremus - "Immersed in controversy:fonts or pools?" Freder1ck 20:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck


"Reformist churches"

This appears in the phrase "Reformist churches such as the churches of Christ" under the heading "Meaning/Effects of Baptism". I removed the hyperlink associated with the term, as it led to the article on political "Reformism" in the UK. The term does not appear to be defined elsewhere in Wikipedia. It would appear to be distinct from "Reformed churches". Perhaps another term was intended. Someone who knows should correct it if necessary. Thanks. 71.122.156.77 01:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I found out that it should be "Restorationist", so I made the change. Someone has evidently been making deliberate subtle-plausible changes. 71.122.156.77 01:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Salvation Army

Salvation Army Do not baptize anyone today. Believe it was to be done only at the time of Christ. That was from the table in the article.Now,it may vary according to different countries,but my best friend recently got baptized in the Salvation Army church.Could someone clarify? Serenaacw 10:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[3] says that the SA don't baptise adults or children even in Australia. Are you sure that your friend was baptised by the SA, rather than just in a SA building or something? Marnanel 19:09, 26 December 2006

(UTC)

It was definitely in the SA.Their whole family are members of that church.I'm wondering if that particular church of the SA demonination doesn't agree with the main SA's ruling on baptism,so they practice it as a private thing.Thanks for looking that up,I'lll look into it a bit more.:) Serenaacw 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us know what you find out! Marnanel 03:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baptism/Archive_1&oldid=1038073887"