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.”
Do not forget...in the Book of Acts, they knew what was needed to be saved so there was no infant baptism. 2,000 years later and most don't have a clue because of all the man made teachings, different flavors for all. Didn't John the Baptist say 'repent'? Did you ever see an infant able to repent?
Here's what they knew in ACTS. "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, “And He shall send to you The One who was prepared for you, Yeshua The Messiah.”Acts 3:19,20."
What I had posted a couple of posts back do back up infant baptism under the heading of “household”.
So many tries at getting it right and the RCC still get it wrong. Your ‘religion’ - not mine, I repented of it.
God’s Word is not wrong; man made teachings are!
Hmmm, no discussion of the left wing of the Reformation churches (Anabaptists and the “nondenominational Evangelicals”) Which are by far the most vibrant and actively growing groups (and probably already a majority of Protestants in the US).
Here is God’s Word on infant baptism:
From the URL I had posted a number of posts back, you can try to argue but the practice is accepted in the Bible.
“III. Infant Baptism
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.
Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.
Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”
Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.
Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized..” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, “If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.
Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.
Luke 1:59 - this proves that “teknon” includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.
Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a “believer’s baptism” requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.
Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.
1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household (”oikos”) of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.
Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.
Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.
2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.
Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.
Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.
1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.”
Done.
“God’s Word is not wrong; man made teachings are!”
Precisely - I am rejecting your false teaching.
Good job. Sadly they appear to be pearls.
And “a method of sprinkling,” as immersion is what baptismo denotes and best fits the typology of burial, though the Scriptural intent is key.
And while Rome basically recognizes Trinitarian Prot baptism, few are really intending to do all that Rome intends in her baptism.
Baptism is not circumcision.
Are you aware that a Gentile who converts to the Jewish faith is required to undergo a baptism by immersion? Baptism, "Mikveh" in Hebrew, is a ritual immersion signifiying repentance from sin, cleansing and a new life). Mikveh practice preceded John the Baptizer by many centuries, and it was not a "creation" of the New Testament church. In the New Testament, the Mikveh finds fulfillment in its incorporation into the witness of the church.
I'm all for people publicly declaring their commitment to raise their children with a sensitivity and receptiveness to faith in Jesus the Christ, and asking the organized church to join them in prayer and effort to those ends. But that is not baptism.
Unfortunately, some folks believe believe they put some kind of "lucky charm" on their children at their infant "baptismal" ceremony, thus confusing the entire concept of "salvation," and cheapening the meaning of faith, though they may not intend to do so.
Whom God says it is limited to. The saved from the Old Testament had only the promise of a Redeemer.
Infants can have faith: Matt 18:6.
Infants can belong to the kingdom of God: Psalm 8:2 Psalm 22:9
The call to baptize is universal and never circumscribed by age, race or gender.
Infants can die demonstrating that they are not immune from the curse of original sin. In short, Baptism is God's work, not man's. God does the creation of faith, the forgiveness of sins and the spiritual regeneration that occurs at Baptism.
My daughter-in-law was baptized as an infant, but felt that she needed to be baptized by immersion before she became a Disciples minister, so our pastor baptized her.
Ouch!!!
Well, Confirmation is the sacrament that formalizes it. But that's not to say a Catholic who is baptized as an infant yet never confirmed is not really baptized. I'm in that situation and am absolutely, positively baptized. Believe me, I accept my baptism.
In my humble opinion, when the time comes for each of us to meet our maker, GOD is not going to ask what church we attended or to what church we belonged. I believe he will ask us what we did in our life to try to adhere to his teachings and commandments. I do not believe there is any segregation in the hereafter. If one is accepted by GOD and his son Jesus, to enter into Heaven, one will see family, friends, acquaintances, and yes, strangers, of ALL faiths, side by side in eternity.
Would Luther have signed such an agreement? He would have never have seen the need for it, since he was never “rebaptized” himself, never had any issue with accepting Catholic baptism, never stopped baptizing infants, etc. People who seriously think that paedobaptism puts Catholics outside the Christian reservation ought to take that up with Luther and Calvin.
... A collection of verses meant to backfill an idea decided apart from Scripture. All together, not one passage in your post shows an infant ever being baptized, and not one commands the church to baptize babies.
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.
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.The PCUSA is the liberal wing of the Presbyterian church (they ordain ministers who deny the deity of Christ) and The Church of Christ has a lot of controversy surrounding it. They do not believe musical instruments should be used in church among other un-Biblical beliefs.
The Reform churches seem pretty straight forward Christian as far as I can see.
I don't see this as a great merging of Catholic and Protestant beliefs.
The majority of Protestant denominations are not included and the ones that are stray from Biblical Christianity.
Wrong. You dispute the Word of God. Very odd.
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.