Baptism Joke
-
Sprinkling vs Immersion: A Baptism Joke
Two long time friends were walking in the cool of the morning discussing the mode of baptism. Both had graduated seminary at the same time, moved to the same town, and each started their ministries there: One a baptist - the other a presbyterian (Go figure...)
Let's listen in to their conversation:
Presbyterian: So let me get this straight...you believe a person isn't baptized unless they have been fully immersed in water - is that correct?
Baptist: Correct. We believe in full immersion - not pouring or sprinkling.
Presbyterian: So if you walked a person into a stream up to their ankles that wouldn't consist in an actual baptism?
Baptist: No sir, no baptism.
Presbyterian: What if you got them wet up past their knees?
Baptist: Still not good enough.
Presbyterian: What about if they waded in to their waist? Would you pronounce them baptized?
Baptist: No, no, no...what about immersion do you not understand?
Presbyterian: Please forgive me, I am slow sometimes...I really do want to understand you and I thank you for your patience. Just a couple of more questions and I'll move onto other edifying topics. What if they were immersed up to their chest?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: Neck?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: What if they walked all the way in, held their breath, and were up to their eyeballs in water?
Baptist: No, they have to be immersed.
Presbyterian: I think I understand now...You and I agree after all! Wait until the next Presbytery meeting!
Baptist: Wha...What do you mean? Did I convince you that immersion is the only way for baptism to be properly administered?
Presbyterian: On the contrary - you gave me great evidence against it!
Baptist: I did?!?
Presbyterian: You sure did. You convinced me that getting your feet wet doesn't make one baptized. You convinced me that getting wet up to your knees or waist doesn't make one baptized. You convinced me that being up to your chest or neck in water doesn't make one baptized. You even convinced me that being up to your eyeballs in water doesn't cut it.
Baptist: So?!?
Presbyterian: So what that tells me is that both of us deem water being administered to the head as sufficient to consider one baptized. -
I thought you guys don't need baptism?
-
Baptism n Eucharist are the 2 Sacraments..of coz we do tt
-
where u get that idea?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:I thought you guys don't need baptism? -
Jesus saves, what... Baptism for what?Originally posted by laoda99:where u get that idea? -
Baptism to show pple we make the choice lor....Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Jesus saves, what... Baptism for what?
in presbyterian it is symbolic....
is it a must to get baptised in RC? wat is the significance... -
it's a sacramentOriginally posted by laoda99:Baptism to show pple we make the choice lor....
in presbyterian it is symbolic....
is it a must to get baptised in RC? wat is the significance...
and as we say it in our creed every week
we aknowledge baptism as the forgiveness of sins
-
ben1xy u catholic?Originally posted by ben1xy:it's a sacrament
and as we say it in our creed every week
we aknowledge baptism as the forgiveness of sins
no baptism=no forgiveness? -
yup catholicOriginally posted by laoda99:ben1xy u catholic?
no baptism=no forgiveness?
instead of me explaining.. i think this explains it 10 times better than i ever could
Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).
Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).
The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).
Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.
Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).
As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.
(got this from catholic.com) the important thing is to understand water and blood baptism. that's the main crux of t -
so technically if someone died b4 baptism, he won't be forgived right?
-
these are ceremonial, meaning not mandatory but greatly encourage (in some church, the members are baptised into the membership of the church). Its more of an outward expressions of what had already taken place inwardly (ie. received salvation by grace through Christ).Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:I thought you guys don't need baptism?
-
erm... sorry.. but i really dunno the answer to thatOriginally posted by laoda99:so technically if someone died b4 baptism, he won't be forgived right? -
something quite informative i juz dug out
Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti), The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained, The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance. Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John, iii, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means. This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto), In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism, The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (II, xxii): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God,infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (III De Anima) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Ep, xxviii, Ad Hieron.) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity." In the Pelagian controversy we find similarly strong pronouncements on the part of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, and of Pope Innocent I. It is owing to the Church's belief in this necessity of baptism as a means to salvation that, as was already noted by St. Augustine, she committed the power of baptism in certain contingencies even to laymen and women. When it is said that baptism is also necessary, by the necessity of precept (praecepti), it is of course understood that this applies only to such as are capable of receiving a precept, viz. adults.
The necessity in this case is shown by the command of Christ to His Apostles (Matthew 2: "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them", etc. Since the Apostles are commanded to baptize, the nations are commanded to receive baptism. The necessity of baptism has been called in question by some of the Reformers or their immediate forerunners. It was denied by Wyclif, Bucer, and Zwingli. According to Calvin it is necessary for adults as a precept but not as a means. Hence he contends that the infants of believing parents are sanctified in the womb and thus freed from original sin without baptism. The Socinians teach that baptism is merely an external profession of the Christian faith and a rite which each one is free to receive or neglect. An argument against the absolute necessity of baptism has been sought in the text of Scripture: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6). Here, they say, is a parallel to the text: "Unless a man be born again of water". Yet everyone admits that the Eucharist is not necessary as a means but only as a precept. The reply to this is obvious. In the first instance, Christ addresses His words in the second person to adults; in the second, He speaks in the third person and without any distinction whatever. Another favorite text is that of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7): "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband; otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy." Unfortunately for the strength of this argument, the context shows that the Apostle in this passage is not treating of regenerating or sanctifying grace at all, but answering certain questions proposed to him by the Corinthians concerning the validity of marriages between heathens and believers. The validity of such marriages is proved from the fact that children born of them are legitimate, not spurious. As far as the term "sanctified" is concerned, it can, at most, mean that the believing husband or wife may convert the unbelieving party and thus become an occasion of their sanctification. A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: "Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism." The arguments for a contrary usage sought in the Second Council of Arles (c. xii) and the Fourth Council of Carthage (c. Ixxix) are not to the point, for these councils speak, not of catechumens, but of penitents who had died suddenly before their expiation was completed. It is true that some Catholic writers (as Cajetan, Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, Klee) have held that infants may be saved by an act of desire on the part of their parents, which is applied to them by some external sign, such as prayer or the invocation of the Holy Trinity; but Pius V, by expunging this opinion, as expressed by Cajetan, from that author's commentary on St. Thomas, manifested his judgment that such a theory was not agreeable to the Church's belief.
sorry for the long read -
I am surprised at your misconception of the Protestant faith.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:I thought you guys don't need baptism? -
I once posted a topic on baptism, saying that the classical Reformed baptism is by sprinkling water on the head (as opposed to immersion), signifying the pouring of the Holy Spirit over the new convert.Originally posted by laoda99:Presbyterian: So what that tells me is that both of us deem water being administered to the head as sufficient to consider one baptized.
Hmm .. but till today I've not seen a single sprinkling baptism. -
I don't think God is like that. I mean, there will be alot and I mean alot of people who don't have the chance to do baptism, maybe they died young, maybe they are born in certain places where christianity is unheard of, and many other reasons. It would be unfair to them.Originally posted by laoda99:so technically if someone died b4 baptism, he won't be forgived right? -
this shows that we have a lot to learn about each otherOriginally posted by Icemoon:I am surprised at your misconception of the Protestant faith. -
sprinkling? as in juz pouring water on the head? if that is the case, the Church of Nativity pours water over the heads of the elect 3 times in stead of a full immersionOriginally posted by Icemoon:I once posted a topic on baptism, saying that the classical Reformed baptism is by sprinkling water on the head (as opposed to immersion), signifying the pouring of the Holy Spirit over the new convert.
Hmm .. but till today I've not seen a single sprinkling baptism. -
My Presbyterian Church Pastor dip his hand in water and put on the believer's head. Tat's all liao.Originally posted by ben1xy:sprinkling? as in juz pouring water on the head? if that is the case, the Church of Nativity pours water over the heads of the elect 3 times in stead of a full immersion -
can sgmacross say something abt this?Originally posted by DailyFreeGames.com:I don't think God is like that. I mean, there will be alot and I mean alot of people who don't have the chance to do baptism, maybe they died young, maybe they are born in certain places where christianity is unheard of, and many other reasons. It would be unfair to them. -
yah, last time, during my baptism (baptis church), the pastor push me so hard, my leader who was there with me also kenna drench (dunk two person in one go).Originally posted by laoda99:My Presbyterian Church Pastor dip his hand in water and put on the believer's head. Tat's all liao.
-
u all dunk in a small tub one right?Originally posted by vince69:yah, last time, during my baptism (baptis church), the pastor push me so hard, my leader who was there with me also kenna drench (dunk two person in one go).
water must be really dirty if many pple dunked.....yucks -
since we r on this topic.. let's take this hypothetical situationOriginally posted by laoda99:can sgmacross say something abt this?
if let's say a tribe in a remote place in the inner city of china has nv heard of the gospel and thus, nv invited Jesus or professed Him as their saviour. What would become of this person when he leaves this world?
anyway.. yah.. i'm also waiting for macross's answer too -
what small tub, its more like a very big fish tank, really, can fit 4 adults in with rooms to spare.Originally posted by laoda99:u all dunk in a small tub one right?
water must be really dirty if many pple dunked.....yucks
there are also some who do it at the swimming pool, know of one church that did theirs at east coast park (salt water dunk) -
actually should go swimming pool...like what NCC did....book whole swimming pool.....not tat yucky/salty...Originally posted by vince69:what small tub, its more like a very big fish tank, really, can fit 4 adults in with rooms to spare.
there are also some who do it at the swimming pool, know of one church that did theirs at east coast park (salt water dunk)