How can Protestants have a valid baptism?


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

How can Protestant baptisms be valid when they do not use all the sacred rites? They neither blow over the water to remove evil spirits, nor do they exorcise the candidate being dipped, nor do they even apply the holy oil to seal them in the Holy Spirit, and many of them do not even dip properly, giving a single immersion instead of three, and not even dipping but throwing them under instead of that which is proper. Some of them even sprinkle where the water does not flow properly. How can they even have a true baptism? These are sacred rites of the Church received in it from the apostles.

  1. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    We're choosing to be baptized, not water boarding infants.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      But you have no true baptism, you reject all the rites the Church received for this sacrament.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Full immersion witnessed by your church body is the most sacred rite, everything else is cucked pageantry. We're not making potions at Hogwart's here.

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          We do immersion by the proper rite, by dipping, you cannot even do that correctly.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Catholics have chrism for that. Children learn about their religion in church school and choose to be re-baptized after they are teens or adults.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Non-Christian here. So we must baptize at birth to be baptized again later because the first baptism was just for security because god forbid the baby dies and goes to hell for sins he committed already. So once they are old enough to understand their mortal predicament we'll baptize them again to be sure they are fully baptized and god, of course, knows that they are baptized twice so he knows you're all good to go to heaven. Is this not redundant?

  2. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    >These are sacred rites of the Church received in it from the apostles.
    Sometimes I let myself be shocked that people actually believe this. That the apostles laid out this elaborate baptism ritual and it was passed down unchanged for two thousand years.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      So how do we interpret scripture without tradition?

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        With Scripture.

        WCF 1.9
        >9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          And where does scripture say that? Show me a verse in the Bible that says the Bible alone is the only authority. Who gets to decide what's in the Bible?

          Even though I'm Orthodox and agree that a lot of protestant baptisms aren't valid, I don't know if God will send someone to eternal damnation on a technicality due to ignorance.
          Most people that perform and partake in these types of baptisms aren't doing it maliciously, while knowing that it's incorrect, but are simply ill-informed.

          You admit both scripture and tradition developed over time and are the products of the societies they came from rather than things handed down in their current form from on high.

          Read the "Apostolic Tradition" by Hippolytus of Rome.

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            Everyone knows there was a tradition going back to the early Church, the problem is its demonstrably true that it did change over time, same with scripture, though since it was written down the changes were over a great period of time and eventually arrived on a mostly settled form by the end of antiquity.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        You admit both scripture and tradition developed over time and are the products of the societies they came from rather than things handed down in their current form from on high.

  3. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Why dies church reform inadvertently lead to the formation of a new church/sect?
    Government reform tacks on new amendments and revisions that make a mockery of the traditional system, so reform isn’t always a good thing, but why is it so impossible to change institutionalized authority?

  4. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Even though I'm Orthodox and agree that a lot of protestant baptisms aren't valid, I don't know if God will send someone to eternal damnation on a technicality due to ignorance.
    Most people that perform and partake in these types of baptisms aren't doing it maliciously, while knowing that it's incorrect, but are simply ill-informed.

  5. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Single immersion is Biblical

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Single immersion promotes Modalism. We baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. It is akin to a Nontrinitarian baptism.

  6. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Prots think this in an acceptable home for God

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      God isn't impressed by buildings, but by the righteousness of his worshipers.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >catholics put stock in the material value of physical objects over the spiritual value of mass
      >catholics unironically forget that the savior of mankind was born in a manger

  7. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    >These are sacred rites of the Church received in it from the apostles.
    Incorrect. The roman church and the orthodox church that spawned from it have nothing to do with the original church, thus nothing to do with the apostles.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *