326

The Rules of the devout (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 week ago by Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Oestradiolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 week ago

Can somebody give me the theological reasons for this? Also which one is the heretic?

[-] redshoepastor@lemmy.world 30 points 6 days ago

If you want an actual answer, I can! Baptists believe that baptism must mimic the baptisms performed by John the Baptist, so they must be believers baptism (no infants) and, most importantly to the meme, full immersion. Presbyterians believe that infants can be baptized and raised in the faith and that any form of water getting on the baptized person (sprinkle, pour, or dunk) is acceptable.

The Baptist thinks the Presbyterian is a heretic, other Presbyterians think this Presbyterian is a heretic if they believe this is the only acceptable way of doing it.

[-] TunaLobster@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

The PC(USA) Book for Order W-3.0407 The Act of Baptism is where they wrote it down. Applied with the hand, by pouring, or through immersion.

Pretty much just get baptized once and you're good.

Oh! That's the others difference. Presbys only have one baptism. Baptists have no limit.

[-] redshoepastor@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

I can honestly say I didn't anticipate someone on Lemmy actually pulling a Book of Order reference (and I was way too lazy to look it up this morning).

Also, I think the Baptists also believe in one baptism (but again, only believers, so infants who were baptized need to be re-baptized for Baptists to recognize it). So I guess no double dipping Oreos for either.

[-] TunaLobster@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

I had it handy. They're doing an immersion at the river soon and they printed cards with the citation to let the congregation know it's fine.

[-] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

I grew up Southern Baptist and it was common for people to be re-baptized if they had doubts or left the faith after their first time. The theological justification is that they must not have truly accepted Jesus into their hearts if the first baptism didn't "take," so if you asked to be re-baptized the pastor would ask you a bunch of questions to make sure you're actually serious this time.

I was baptized when I was 7 and have since left the church, but some of my family have begged me to come back and truly accept Jesus into my heart so I can be re-baptized.

[-] AEsheron@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

..... I thought it was about communion....

[-] Aksamit@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago

Do the crackers get dipped in the wine?

[-] redshoepastor@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

There is a communion practice called "intinction" where the bread is dipped in the juice/wine. Probably not common in traditions that use "host" (crackers, but actually closer to styrofoam), but it is a thing.

[-] poke@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago

Its a reference to how they do their baptisms.

[-] festnt@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

both, the only holy way to eat oreos is with no milk, by opening 2 oreos, eating one crackly part of each and putting the 2 remains together so that theres double the sweet

can be repeated if you're really into it

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

the only holy way to eat oreos is with no milk, by opening 2 oreos, eating one crackly part of each and putting the 2 remains together so that theres double the sweet

[-] lime@feddit.nu 6 points 1 week ago

can you get oreos without the middle part? the cookies are already super sugary, i'd think there are some people who would rather skip the diabetes cream.