/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

a 'reformed church' that baptised you at 6?

i know presbyterians practice paedobaptim, making it a point of distinction from confessional baptists who steering clear of such doctrine tend to wait until adulthood before allowing a member to be baptised; so i'm having trouble fitting your allegedly 'reformed' church into either of those denominations

were you perhaps part of an SBC fellowship, or Independent Fundamentalist Baptist?

if so, you may be mischaracterising the church you were raised in as 'reformed', since both the SBC and IFB have a number of outliers within their collects; and it's possible you weren't actually engaging with reformed theology

anyways, ask your priest if he follows the precepts laid out in the roman catholic catechism which accept all Trinitarian baptism

> The ordinary ministers of baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of baptism for salvation. (CCC 1256)

a sedevacantist or similar outlier may not subscribe to such dogmas, but it really all depends on which denomination of RC you're affiliating with

also; if you haven't even read the CCC for yourself you're not really ready to become a roman catholic

>>740188

They don't make a big deal out of the distinction but the Church describes itself as the "Reformed Church of Hajdúhadház"

(http://hajduhadhaz.reformatus.hu/ is their official website, not avaliable English just showing for reference, they are also hosting their site on the official domain for reformed churches here)

They also maintain the town's kindergarten and primary school, both of which also describe themselves as reformed.

I don't have a personal catechist sadly but I am reading through the CCC found in the Vatican's archives

(http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html)

>>740195

ah, you'll have to forgive my americentrism – i assumed you were a yank

'fraid i don't know much* about the hungarian reformed church as it stands now, all my history of the country focusing on the period of the hussites and papal bulls against king ladislaus

still, seems a bit strange for a 'reformed church' to baptise 6y/olds unless such an infant made a notable profession of faith, which could be testified to by some actions on his part evidencing the work of the Holy Spirit…

~

*anything

>>740207

It's okay, it happens a lot nowadays.

Children get baptised here all the time, I wasn't even aware there were objections to it tbh, it's just parents setting a date for the baptising with the priest and bam, done without a second thought.

I still remember it myself, it was just very cold overall.

>>740207

I really appreciate the answer regardless!

>>740212

and i'm really glad to have met you here, you've opened an area of exploration that i'me grateful for; and i'm just starting to read some articles on the Hungarian Reformed Church

out of curiousity, would you care to elaborate on some of the issues you had with the HRC?

the first few articles i've run across seem to be portraying the church as somewhat complicit with far-right politicians – or possibly fearful of them and refusing to denounce their actions – and i wondered if that was part of your own experience

… though being given baptism at an age too young to understand all the implications would be enough to colour my perspective

>>740218

Don't mention it, I suppose at the end of the day we do have an interesting history regards to the Reformation, quite a few cities here were major centers of it.

And sure, I have fairly general issues from a personal view point with the Reformation itself rather than just the Hungarian Reformed Church which is worth mentioning I would say.

The Reformation itself is just a giant divide that I think at the end of the day had a lot more to do with temporary problems the people were suffering from, and church/royal politics but very little on the theological side of things.

I could never take Martin Luther himself seriously and men of his kind that came after also tended to focus more on the political implications of Christianity, they just weren't concerned with theology to the extent I would expect, they all seem just so biased and a product of the time for me, while I mostly perceive the RCC and the EOC as the most legitimate institutions carrying on the word.

On a personal level I experienced the same kind of "politics/temporary problems of today > theology" sort of attitude, even from priests of the HRC (which I admit, have limited experience with, my parents didn't attend Church on the regular for one) but also the followers, it all seems so shallow, people showed up only to partake in mass but had zero passion for it and were preoccupied with everything that wasn't Christ, the material, I dismissed them because they were just people at the end of the day.

But HRC priests (the 3 who I somewhat knew) were also the same, there wasn't anything passionate or Christian about them, they muttered out their lines while constantly smelling of wine and went home once they were done.

All in all I dislike the Reformation itself and have almost exclusively bad experiences with the HRC and by extension, the RC.

They are fairly political on the higher level yes, the ruling party Fidesz is in a coalition with the KDNP (Christian Democratic Party) and the HRC along with Baptists, Calvinists, Jehovah's Witnesses and other smaller Protestant denominations all throw their weight behind the party and the party promotes and donates to them to no end in return.

Neither the RCC nor the EOC support the party because they don't represent their interests for one and they prefer to stay apolitical whenever something doesn't concern them directly (though the EOC is so small they don't really matter to the state anyway).

I don't think being baptised itself has really twisted my perspective, as you can probably already tell my family is sort of just nominally Christian and that's that for the most part, they're non-practicing essentially, they didn't taught me about really anything beyond the most basic of things regarding Christianity which might as well have been on the same level as "Santa brings gifts", so I was an Atheist throughout my teen years, it has only been in the past few years that I started being interested in Christianity (firstly approaching it from a political perspective I admit but now I accept it as it is regardless of my personal politics), and since then I've been looking at all sorts of denominations from a theological and historical perspective mostly.

Which is how I would to think I arrived at the RCC, I'm still a long way from committing myself to it which is why I'm constantly questioning and seeking answers.

(sorry for the long rant)

Baptism is an ordinance to follow after salvation where you are fully immersed in water before witnesses

Is that what you did the first time? If so, don't do it again

Catholic "baptism" is usually sprinkling water on your head with the intent of removing so-called "original sin"

Is this what you're looking to do? If so, read the NT again

>>740266

>quoations around Catholic baptism

>wrongly describes baptism

Opinion discarded.

>>740229

>I think at the end of the day had a lot more to do with temporary problems the people were suffering from, and church/royal politics but very little on the theological side of things.

Okay, that means you're completely clueless. Open a book or two by the men involved in it.

>>740269

Pouring water on the head is far from being just a Catholic only form of baptism, just calling it Catholic baptism is pretty stupid given how many denominations do baptism by pouring and especially regarding that Eastern Catholics mostly do it by immersion (something you describe as some sort of divine ordinance, which it isn't afaik that view is only professed by Reformed and Prots along with some more obscure denominations, it's merely an alternative form of baptism) so again calling pouring baptism Catholic is dumb when it's widespread among other denominations and but more importantly because it isn't even the universal standard among Catholics.

Sorry if I come off as overtly aggressive here but you were pretty passive aggressive yourself, especially with the "just read the NT again dude" comment.

>>740271

Yep, just a big biased time waster only looking to get what they can out of people who don't subscribe to their views.

Gonna stop right here and say bye bye.

>>740272

It's a practice with it's origin in roman catholicism. Thats a fair criticism if you think I was mischaracterizing it as a Catholic exclusive issue.

The OP was debating catholic baptism, so thats what I addressed.

The "ordinance" terminology is a baptist/free church distinctive to draw distance from sacramentalism

>it isn't even the universal standard among Catholics.

It's the norm. I'm aware catholics can immerse, so I said "usually" in both posts.

I am being intentionally blunt. It is eminently obvious that works do not save over and over in the Bible, and it's only when you add these inane theological systems that you think baptism is necessary for salvation, like neoplatonist original sin.

<8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

<As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8-9 NAS)

>>740229

no need to apologise for 'ranting', i wouldn't have asked if i wasn't interested in your thought process, and i found that poast very instructive as to the forming of your worldview

from what i can see of the Hungarian Reformed, there's some similarity with the Eastern Orthodox within the Soviet Bloc – the Russian Orthodox Church being notorious as something like a third wing of the KGB – so i'm not surprised to see you frame the HRC as temporal in perspective and nominal in practice, since any visible church under Communism would need to side with the State in order to survive, and such capitulation would have vestigial remnants in church polity to this day

that being said, is it possible that such a temporal and utilitarian view of religion might have skewed your perspective of such figures as Jan Huss or Luther, the latter seeming by all accounts to have been very sincere in his religion; even willing to face death for opposing doctrines of Roman Catholicism such as the selling of indulgences?

while we might argue whether he was correct to take such a position, and whether he was sincerely wrong; i can't help but wonder if your understanding of such figures in the Reformation might have been coloured by the church you were raised in; itself a very political entity which would likely frame historical events through that same lens

Interdenominational baptism is not accepted anywhere, technically.

You can be accepted through economia, or invalidate the previous by the same principle.

There was a point the Orthodox Church accepted baptism done by Arians, even. The "it's valid if it's done by the trinity" is just a recommendation with little basis on History.

Basically, it's up to you. Both are fine, because it's not a magic spell.

Do they baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

If they did then you are already baptised.

Explain your situation to the priest and if everything checks out everything you need is to go to confession.

>>740339

Sure I recognise my perspective probably isn't the most neutral, at the same time I can hardly find any sources on Luther that's unbiased, there's no good books written on him by 3rd party observers afaik.

And heck, he could've been right in everything for all I know, his church is still in great dismay today, not to mention we fought in the Thirty Years' War against his ideals, my people came into Carpathia and fought civil wars just so we can be Catholics and abandon Paganism, I love reading early Catholic church fathers and I could never just disregard their writings and so on. There are just so many reasons that makes it so that even if I would come to know that somehow, he was right in everything, I still couldn't accept just straight up abandoning the RCC's teachings.

>>740172

Prottie baptism is legit, according to catholic theology, as long as >>740424 is followed.

But yeah, tell the priest.

>>740793

>Many Protestant sects either implicitly or explicitly deny the Holy Trinity

name them

>>740861

Unitarians, JWs, and mormons are not protestant. They don't even classify themselves as such.

Non-trinitarian pentecostals self discriminate as "oneness pentecostals"

try again

>>740896

Whose definition?

Not Protestants, not those cults, not seculars (see pew)

How do you define protestantism?

>>740950

That's not a well supported position but ok

It remains a misrepresentation to say "many protestant denominations are non-trinitarian" when your proofs are a few cults

Maybe you mean to say "there exist non-trinitarian offshoots of protestantism"

>>740964

>That's not a well supported position but ok

there's no ok about it, you're allowing this skrub to redefine protestantism with an ahistorical and otherwise skewed perspective to include flippin mormons

he don't have the juice for that kinda edict, unless of course he's taking the line that he can interpret history as an infallible authority; but isn't that what his ilk accuse prots of doing with scripture?

nah, this kid has drunk the kool-aid and started believing his own hype; don't leave him to such delusions - he ain't all that

>>740172

water baptism is just water on your flesh, to truly be baptised you have to call upon Lord Jesus Christ to receive the gift and baptism of the Holy Ghost.

https://www.allaboutgod.com/baptism-in-the-holy-spirit.htm

>>741321

nothin personnel kid but i wasnt talkin 5 u

>>741282

I agree but I'm not "allowing" anything

I've given what I think is a compelling argument and he rejected it

>>741321

>rejects basic history in favor of a convenient narrative

This is what Catholicism looks like

>>741422

yeah, bruv - sorry about that; was venting some steam and got mad at you even acknowledging his weird flex

disregard everything - i suck

>>741429

it's ok bro

belittling yourself is not attractive