 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16th, 2006 02:02 am |
|
So my friend from my old church who is sympathetic somewhat to the catholic church (i heard from my mother) actually got the church to recite the Nicene Creed. They usually complain at everything catholic he does because they are a church with a lot of ex-catholics. Anyway he hasd to like explain a few things and ways that they would be interpreting it in order not to freak people out.
I am glad he is working at this, but one thing he said i thought ws really a copout. He said that one baptism for the forgiveness of sins (wel he did not say this is what it meant but how they could interpret it) they could think of baptism in the Holy Spirit instead of actual baptism. I think he would know better than to present that as an actual meaning that the Fathers who wrote the creed could have intended for, but his personal theology is that when scripture talks about baptism is that it is talking about baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said he would baptize us in the Holy Spirit and this is what happens when one repents and accepts Chrsit. There may be some truth in it because I think great graces are given when one accepts Jesus even before they have been baptized.
Anyway I definitely want to challenge him on the nicene creed thing. CAn anyone point me to a simple reference that would show that the creed is easily shown to be referring to literal baptism. And can anyone help me understandthis idea of baptism in the Holy Spirit and how it goes along or not with baptism.
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16th, 2006 11:43 pm |
|
Hmm. If your friend takes your advice, he could well be greeted with the left foot of fellowship. And if he does not, your friendship would seem to be less than solid.
Can anyone point me to a simple reference that would show that the creed is easily shown to be referring to literal baptism?
For a Baptist, the creed is not authoritative. So the information you ask for would make little difference to him. The bible would seem much more apropos for a Baptist. Your own life experience bears this out, right?
A few months ago, I wrote on the old forum a few points in this regard. Although it is in answer to a different question from yours, I think it is worthwhile to repeat it here as an example of what I believe to be effective.
• If [as Baptists claim] baptism doesn’t actually “do” anything, why is it so important to Baptists that it be done by immersion only? (Compare Didache 7.1, written probably in the first century AD: “In regard to Baptism — baptize thus: After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [that is, flowing] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”)
• If Christian baptism doesn’t do anything, how is it to be distinguished from the baptism of John? (Acts 9:2–6; 1:5; 11:16; Matthew 3:11 and parallels)
• If baptism doesn’t do anything, why would Christ bother to command it? (Matthew 28:19)
• If baptism doesn’t do anything, why does scripture say “baptism… now saves you”; and “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”; and again “Rise up and be baptized and wash away thy sins”? (1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38; 22:16)
• If baptism doesn’t do anything, why does scripture say that through it one dies to sin and rises to new life, just as Christ died and rose again? (Romans 6:2–5; Colossians 2:12)
• If baptism doesn’t do anything, why does scripture say, “And such [sinners] some of you were. But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God”? (1 Corinthians 6:11)
On the other hand, to attempt the same sort of thing with the topic of the “baptism of the Spirit” would, I think, be far more difficult, because in Catholic belief the Holy Spirit in fact does come to us initially through baptism.
One of our differences with the Baptists is that we distinguish between baptism and confirmation, while Baptists do not. Their position is understandable because in the early Church, as in the eastern Church today, the two sacraments are not separated, but are celebrated together. Thus the water (baptism) and the fullness of the Spirit (confirmation) can easily be seen as a single event (cf. John 3:5).
Ultimately, then, the question comes back to the issue of what baptism “does.” For a Baptist, baptism does nothing; a person is saved by faith, he says, not baptism. We can answer that, as I have above. But he also affirms that the Holy Spirit is the true baptism. In a sense he is right, because baptism is effective precisely because of the action of the Holy Spirit (John 3:6ff).
But a Baptist would probably also tell you that the Holy Spirit operates independently of any ritual act, thereby distinguishing the Spirit from the water and declaring the water essentially useless. And this brings us back once again to the claim that baptism doesn’t “do” anything, doesn’t it?
So what is it that you were going to tell your friend?
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 01:59 am |
|
my friend is not a baptist in personal theology and he will be leaving that church i imagine at some point of his life. He only recently has been learning about the early church.
so i really do want what i asked for, just some simple evidence or quotes from fathers demonstrsting that the Nicene creed is mentioning water baptism. we have been through the scriptural arguments. but i figures since he likes the nicene creed and trusts it that i could show him that there are not multiple interpretations of this phrase. That it means something specific. So i just want to have something to back myself up in case he thinks the phrase was intended for that ambiguity. so i really am not looking for a biblical argument so much as a historical one.
while we are on it this topic does confuse me. I think that the Holy Spirit blows where it will and though there must be point to confirmation, i think a person could be well in touch with the Spirit before being confirmed, or could be confirmed but to little benefit because he or she really does not believe. I love the sacraments, but i fear the way they can so easily be practiced apart from faith or due to family pressure. i am sure it still does something powerful, but it is a little sad to me when people have such a gift and do not realize much anything about it or even themselves believe it.
conversely i stand by my statement that there really must be something that the catholic church calls baptism by desire, and my personal opinion is that many people who are simply mistaught about baptism and delay it are still blessed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit due to their desire for it and love of god. I can not prove this, but i think it is true.
it is a little confusing to have two sacraments separated by years that seem to achieve the same effect. what is significantly different in the way a person receives the spirit at baptism than what they receive at confirmation? was there not enough spirit given in baptism that it needs some refill?
or is it supposed to be that in baptism someone else vouches for your faith and since conversion must be about baptism and belief confirmation is your chance to affirm this belief and reinforce the baptism?
still, it troubles me that it is forced at a certain age. i see countless kids go through this just becasue they are presured to and will get gifts from family who do not really believe or know if they believe. i kind of think it should be delayed until one knows that he really is making the decision in faith. I do not like that kids who try this are probably discouraged by their parents. shouldn't sponsors make sure nobody commits to the church without real belief or desire to believe?
also may someone receive the eucharsit who grew up catholic and who received first communion yet did not stick around long enough for confirmation if they are now seeking that confirmation through RCIA?
brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 09:50 am |
|
My friend is not a Baptist in personal theology and he will be leaving that church I imagine at some point of his life.
Perhaps. But in the meantime he remains a Baptist. I see him bending his personal theology to accommodate others in his congregation. So we should not judge his inmost thoughts on the basis of what he tells them.
I really do want what I asked for, just some simple evidence or quotes from fathers demonstrating that the Nicene creed is mentioning water baptism.
Nobody in the early Church seems to have championed the Baptist notion of separating the action of the Holy Spirit from the sacrament of baptism. This ideology did not appear until centuries later, and so was not treated by the Fathers of the Church. I think the any early Christian would have considered the idea absurd.
I think the biblical affirmations are sufficient. If one were to argue that the Nicene Creed really does advocate something other than what the bible supports, then he is throwing the whole of historical Christianity into doubt. Our defense would be that the bible clearly states that Jesus said that the gates of hades would not prevail against his Church. If the Nicene Creed is proof that early Christianity abandoned the biblical affirmation of water baptism, then the gates of hades have in fact prevailed, Jesus’ word is false and Christianity in any form is worthless.
I think that the Holy Spirit blows where it will and though there must be point to confirmation, I think a person could be well in touch with the Spirit before being confirmed, or could be confirmed but to little benefit because he or she really does not believe. I love the sacraments, but I fear the way they can so easily be practiced apart from faith or due to family pressure.
Abuse of the sacraments is not the norm, and those who abuse them do not benefit from them, because they do not really have the intention to receive the sacrament. This is dogma.
Thus we understand why some people who receive the sacraments remain in their sins, and whatever grace they possess is taken away.
Those whose faith and virtue are prior to the sacraments have been given a grace in anticipation of those sacraments through their implicit intention to receive them. All grace flows from God through the Church in its sacraments, so that even if a manifest grace comes seemingly apart from the sacraments, it is still connected to them in a hidden and mysterious way. Again, this is dogma.
Thus we understand why people who are seemingly far from the Catholic Church or even from Christianity can be saved. The baptism of desire is a specific and recognized instance of this mysterious bond.
It is a little confusing to have two sacraments separated by years that seem to achieve the same effect. What is significantly different in the way a person receives the Spirit at baptism than what they receive at confirmation? Was there not enough Spirit given in baptism that it needs some refill?
Each sacrament has a different purpose and a different effect. Otherwise, as you say, there would be no reason for us to have seven of them. St. Thomas Aquinas states (Summa Theologica III q72 a6) that “confirmation is to baptism as growth is to birth.”
Interestingly, in the same article, St. Thomas affirms that “the divine power is not confined to the [ritual celebration of the] sacraments,” so that just as the desire for baptism confers the effect of baptism, so also “man can receive spiritual strength to confess the faith of Christ publicly, without receiving the sacrament of confirmation.” We can extend this principle to what we call “spiritual communion” in relation to the Eucharist. So you see how we can benefit from the sacraments even if we are for the moment unable to receive them.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 02:14 pm |
|
i am still am unsure why you will not produce one piece of evidence that the way the writers or the creed interpreted the bibles meaning of baptism. I mean, if i asked you for clarification that he early church believed in the real presence, papal authority, or immaculate conception you could showe an endless amount of early church writing confirming this. That is all i am looking for. A quote or two to demonstrate how the verses about baptism were interpreted, or a few quotes stating what baptism is in the mind of an early church father, preferabbly one who was involved in writing the creed.
I was happy to hear the dogmas you presented. one troubles me a little. saying that all graces flow through the church and her sacraments. I would agree that it makes sense that through the sacraments those graces must actually have an amazing effect on all the world as they go forth from us or the church. This makes sense that the graces given are to be shared and benefit many. But could not God also be independently working His graces in other ways? What about pentecost, what sacrament made that come about? Is not the Holy spirit like the wind blowing where it will? i would not think it is subject to the church or her sacraments, but that it is willed by God that He will give most graces through th echurch and her sacraments. But he also could simply pour His spirit out to renew the face of the earth in any other way He willed to. Maybe i am wrong. I am only saying what seems to be the case in my mind so i probably am wrong somehow. Are you saying that if a protestant receives the holy spirit without baptism or confirmation it is because those graces flow mysteriously through the sacramental life of the church? I would say that it is because the Holy Spirit also works in ways apart from the church that we do not understand. Maybe i would argue that since the catholic church is the true church anyone receiving truth is doing so due to the catholic church being in the world and people even in ignorance of it are experiencing these truths as they flow from her into the world. Still it must be all about God and the work He inittiates through us. I hate to say that we are controlling his flow of graces so muchh as obediently doing the things that He has mandated to give these graces.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 04:53 pm |
|
Brian wrote:I am still am unsure why you will not produce one piece of evidence that the way the writers or the creed interpreted the bibles meaning of baptism.
For your benefit, I have just spent a couple of hours searching through a pile of ancient texts — councils, Fathers of the Church and other materials — and have found absolutely nothing of what you seek. Why? Because unlike the other issues you mention, such as the real presence, papal authority, or Mary’s sinlessness, the idea that baptism could be conferred without water or rite simply did not arise in those times. Until about the 15th century, no one questioned the ancient tradition in this regard, so it was simply not explained.
The documents of the Council of Trent give the very first indication that the use of water has been rejected by heretics.
Council of Trent, Session V, Canon 2 wrote:If any one says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account wrests, through some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit” — let him be anathema.
But as you know, this is from the 16th century, treating of the Protestants.
* * * * * * *
Regarding my statement that all grace comes ultimately through the sacraments:
Brian wrote:But could not God also be independently working His graces in other ways? What about Pentecost, what sacrament made that come about?
The phenomenon of Pentecost is analogous to confirmation. But this misses the point. Certainly God could have chosen to work independently of his own sacraments. But our doctrine affirms that he did not. However that may be, we also know that God works in mysterious ways through his sacraments to the benefit of those who do not have the sacraments, provided that they are properly disposed. In other words, the water and the ritual are the way the Church must celebrate the sacraments, but God, who sees the heart of man, sometimes applies the sacraments in hidden ways. For this reason we say that God is not bound by his own rules. This does not make what he does “not a sacrament”; it merely changes the form of its conferral.
Are you saying that if a Protestant receives the Holy Spirit without baptism or confirmation it is because those graces flow mysteriously through the sacramental life of the Church?
Roughly. The form of the sacrament is changed, but not its substance.
I would say that it is because the Holy Spirit also works in ways apart from the Church that we do not understand.
And so it appears from the human point of view. But according to our doctrine, no grace comes into the world apart from the Church, just as no grace comes apart from the Holy Spirit. Since things of the spirit are not visible in the same way as a ritual with water (as for baptism), we do not make the connection. But this does not mean it happens the way we imagine. In fact, the ritual exists to give us a proper understanding of what is happening.
Maybe I would argue that, since the Catholic Church is the true Church, anyone receiving truth is doing so due to the Catholic Church being in the world, and people even in ignorance of it are experiencing these truths as they flow from her into the world.
I think this is an acceptable statement. The conferral of grace through the sacraments to those who have no visible connection with the Church would work in the same basic manner.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18th, 2006 02:57 am |
|
First of all i want to ask your forgiveness if i am using you too much or taking you from more worthy responses. I do respect your work here and want to only engage you in what you see as edifying. but you sort of are in a position to deal with such issues so I continue to ask. I know you are not my personal theologian and i am sorry if i make you do all my work for me. I feel bad about that.
Maybe you do not know what it is i am looking for? I found an example from a book. "Therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be observed in respect of infants, and newly born persons..." This is a quote from Cyprian in argument against the idea that children should not be baptized until after their 8th day. So i think it is closer along the lines of what i am looking for, since it clearly links water baptism with a grace being received even by an infant.
This is from Origen: " The church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of the divine mysteries knew well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by the water and the spirit" he continues.."Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins."
by the way, is origen a trustworthy source. I hear he had some bizarre thoughts...still, this seems to pretty much be along the lines of what i am looking for as well. I am surprised there are not more since i would think that people would have written something about what exactly baptism is or even maybe some commentaries on John 3 or other passages we cite.
I suppose it is a strong argument that no writers ever speak of baptism only being a symbolic thing until much later. One thing that troubled me with this doctrine was a protestant teacher who tried to take all the tachings that appear to say that baptism saves and argued from the greek meanings of the words that it is using baptism as an idea of "immersing" someone in something. So when the bible mentions baptism saving or washing it is really talking about the reality of our faith immersing us into Jesus' saving work. It is good to know that this idea was never taught before.
I still struggle a litte with the idea of all graces flowing through the sacraments of the church. I mean, God is above the church and is free to act however He wants. Were you saying that whether through a sacrament directly or whether through God indirectly bestowing grace it still would be considered a sacrament? therfore baptism by desire is still a sacrament? what exactly is a sacrament? I mean, i know, what it is, but i think i have no idea exactly how far it reaches and when i use the term i feel that there is a literal interpretation like the sacrament of this...or that...one of the seven...but i also think the term describes a lot of things. I read that he orthodox see that the church defines 7 sacraments but that there are limitless sacraments becasue anyway that God uses anything in life to administer grace, it is a sacrament. So there are countless sacramental graces flowing all the time. This is why i see it difficult to say that all graces flow through the church, becasue i think that God can move in ways we do not understand.
Sorry that i seem to be having a hard time with some of these discussions. i am getting a little over my head. I hope i am learning something.
Brian
|
|
|
twiggymoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 36 |
| First Name: | Twiggymoo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nazarene, Free Methodist, Baptist..Romeward bound |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18th, 2006 02:16 pm |
|
I attend a large baptist church and our pastor does baptisms prior to the start of the worship service - about once a month.
I get annoyed every time when he downplays it by saying "baptism doesn't save you", you are following in obedience to Christ's command. No mention of Grace or anything in connection with baptism. It would make me wonder - why get baptized?
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 119 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18th, 2006 07:09 pm |
|
I cannot speak for David but rest assured that your questions and his answers serve more than one purpose. I think that you and I are at similar points in our journey since many of your posts hit on the same questions and points I have but have not gotten around to asking. So, not only is David really answering two of us (and I am sure there are probably more) but you save me typing time as well :-)
I can't answer the specific points of your email but I also often question where the church gets the idea that God this or God that and while some seems to have scriptural support, some I just can't see. A while back, David quoted from Providence and I have gone back to read different sections at different times and found some points worth pondering. I also was given a copy of The Three Ages of the Interior Life and it is a huge 2 volume work but again, you can pick and choose chapters. I don't know if these will help with this specific topic but it might be worth a quick look to see if anything strikes you.
I also feel that I am in over my head lately and have tried to step back but I seem to keep running into issues without looking for them :-) It can be nice to know someone else is at the same point along the path. I hope you find your way.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19th, 2006 12:01 am |
|
First of all i want to ask your forgiveness if i am using you too much or taking you from more worthy responses.
I understand your needs, Brian, and there is no need to ask forgiveness. You are availing yourself of something quite legitimate, since I have chosen to make myself available for this kind of work. You are quite welcome to ask whatever questions you feel are needful. The only thing I would ask of you is that you be patient when, because of other commitments, I must postpone my replies. And of course if you ask many questions at once, I will not be able to answer them all immediately, either. On some occasions, you may find someone else able to provide you a satisfactory answer; this too is perfectly all right.
Maybe you do not know what it is I am looking for?
You were quite specific in your initial question that you wanted something on the necessity of water in baptism. The examples you have provided are of infant baptism, which is another question entirely. I responded to your original question; do you now need information about infant baptism? Yes, the Fathers of the Church have dealt reasonably well with that topic. The two quotes you give are some of the most famous and compelling in favor of infant baptism. But neither states that water must be used, only that baptism should be conferred on the children of Christian parents.
Origen is greatly to be admired because of his great learning and intelligence. He did hold some views that later would be considered heretical. For this reason and a few known facts of his life, he is not honored as a saint. Still, he broke new ground as the Church’s first bona fide theologian, and being the first to do something always involves risk.
I suppose it is a strong argument that no writers ever speak of baptism only being a symbolic thing until much later.
I think it is. But of course it is difficult to prove because we must proceed by way of a lack of evidence. This is why I made doubly sure by actually checking my library, since my methods and memory could be faulty.
Were you saying that whether through a sacrament directly or whether through God indirectly bestowing grace it still would be considered a sacrament? Therefore baptism by desire is still a sacrament?
I can’t quote you chapter and verse on this one, but I find it a reasonable conclusion from the Church’s stated beliefs. We could call the baptism of desire a “hidden” or “virtual” sacrament, to avoid confusion with the sacraments as they are normally conceived and practiced. Certainly the Church recognizes that the effect of the baptism of desire is the same as that of the sacrament; this is clear from the Catechism (§1258–1260).
You will note that the Church does not use the word “sacrament” for these cases in the Catechism. This is because “sacrament” is being used to refer to a specific ritual act, not to its theological and spiritual underpinnings and its salvific result. I am using the word in an accommodated sense. And for this reason I seek to qualify it with adjectives, as mentioned above. The reason I consider my view legitimate is that, in spite of the usage the Church prefers in the Catechism, it also admits the traditional terminology, “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood.” So even the Church at times refers to these extraordinary circumstances as “baptism.”
I read that the Orthodox see that the Church defines 7 sacraments, but that there are limitless sacraments because any way that God uses anything in life to administer grace, it is a sacrament.
I see no problem with this line of thought so long as we do not push it too far. On the one hand, the seven sacraments are in fact the only ones the Church has been given for the salvation and sanctification of its members. On the other hand, God does use many acts and circumstances beyond those seven as occasions to bring grace and healing to all men.
There is also a spiritual principle which states that in our dealings with God, the desire for the accomplishment of a good is in fact that accomplishment. In other words, God is quite willing to accept the desire for the deed if the good is otherwise unattainable. Thus we have the baptism of desire. But the principle is valid for evil deeds as well: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27–28).
I believe you are learning a lot, Brian. If I saw that you were not, I would not bother to answer. Stay with it.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19th, 2006 03:22 am |
|
sorry if i was confusing. i think my question was mainly one of demonstrating that the early church believed that water baptism was a means of forgiveness. not that water was specifically necessary, just that the baptism referred to is water baptism. The reason the quotes on infant baptism work for me is that they obviously are referring to the act of baptism being a means of grace received. It is doubtful they would be speaking of some other act more symbolic or metaphorical when speaking of baptizing infants. I did not need somethig that specifically mentions water, but just to establish the early theology on what baptism was in a way that it can be understood would be referring to a literal baptism.
Did you have any thoughts on how to refute the idea that verses like Romans 6 or others on baptism are referring to an immersion into Chrsit in a more spiritual sense and not a literal? or is it enough to read the text plainly and note that Historical Christianity does not leave this a viable option. The passage in Acts about rise and be baptized...calling on His name.... or however that goes, i have heard a protestant explain that it is the "calling on His name" that saves, and nothing about the baptism.. that is frustrating when the bible seems to be able to be interpreted differently like this. People say, well this word is really referring back to this in the greek. They also say that the many verses that link faith to salvation without mentioning baptism prove that baptism is not necessary becasue there are verses showing salvation without mentioning baptism. my answer was that if you can even demonstrate a handful of verses that do speak of the necessity of salvation it only makes sense that they all must be true, rather than one instead of the other. They do the same thing with James 2 saying that since other passages clearly speak of being saved by faith through grace apart from the law, that obviously we muct interpret james 2 or matthew 25 in light of this, but again this makes no sense becasue it tends to ignore the plain teaching of these passages rather than interprting all the passages in light of eachother, it seems to put one idea against the other.
|
|
|
BettyBoopToo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Camas/Washougal, Washington USA |
| Posts: | 538 |
| First Name: | Betty | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Fist Baptist/Calvary Babtist/Secular Confusion/ Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19th, 2006 11:23 pm |
|
Brian, If I may I'd like to try and help you find what your looking for. I'll try not to be redundant and give you the same information David already has. Five years ago when I was trying to figure out the How's & Why's about Baptism, I read a book that I felt covered Baptism very well and I thought I'd mention it first. "Crossing the Tiber" by Steve Ray Is a very good book and I most enjoyed the depth including reliable sources on the different types of Baptism, he went into great depth. They may even have the book here at The Coming Home Network and if not here is a link to his site. brian wrote: sorry if i was confusing. i think my question was mainly one of demonstrating that the early church believed that water baptism was a means of forgiveness. not that water was specifically necessary, just that the baptism referred to is water baptism. The reason the quotes on infant baptism work for me is that they obviously are referring to the act of baptism being a means of grace received. It is doubtful they would be speaking of some other act more symbolic or metaphorical when speaking of baptizing infants. I did not need somethig that specifically mentions water, but just to establish the early theology on what baptism was in a way that it can be understood would be referring to a literal baptism.
I'll try and give you some ECF's writings on Baptism.
"When, however, the prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'" Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203).
"Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,--as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God." Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2:16 (A.D. 181).
" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).
"But you will perhaps say, What does the, baptism of water contribute towards the worship of God? In the first place, because that which hath pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because, when yon are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; hut otherwise it is impossible. For thus hath the true prophet testified to its with an oath: 'Verily I say to you, That unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning, and acknowledges those who are baptized under the name of the threefold sacrament, and rescues them from future punishments, presenting as a gift to God the souls that are consecrated by baptism. Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it be is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation. For whether you be righteous or unrighteous, baptism is necessary for you in every respect: for the righteous, that perfection may be accomplished in him, and he may be born again to God; for the unrighteous, that pardon may he vouchsafed him of the sins which he has committed in ignorance. Therefore all should hasten to he born again to God without delay, because the end of every one's life is uncertain." Recognitions of Clement, 6:9 (A.D. 221).
All of my quotes come from "The Faith of the Early Fathers" by William A. Jurgens and also here is a link to a page I think you may enjoy.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html
Did you have any thoughts on how to refute the idea that verses like Romans 6 or others on baptism are referring to an immersion into Chrsit in a more spiritual sense and not a literal? or is it enough to read the text plainly and note that Historical Christianity does not leave this a viable option. The passage in Acts about rise and be baptized...calling on His name.... or however that goes, i have heard a protestant explain that it is the "calling on His name" that saves, and nothing about the baptism.. that is frustrating when the bible seems to be able to be interpreted differently like this. People say, well this word is really referring back to this in the greek. They also say that the many verses that link faith to salvation without mentioning baptism prove that baptism is not necessary becasue there are verses showing salvation without mentioning baptism. my answer was that if you can even demonstrate a handful of verses that do speak of the necessity of salvation it only makes sense that they all must be true, rather than one instead of the other. They do the same thing with James 2 saying that since other passages clearly speak of being saved by faith through grace apart from the law, that obviously we muct interpret james 2 or matthew 25 in light of this, but again this makes no sense becasue it tends to ignore the plain teaching of these passages rather than interprting all the passages in light of eachother, it seems to put one idea against the other.
These next two paragraphs were taken from the works of Martin Luther on the Whittenburg Project wesite.
My question would be as to whether he sounds like he believes Baptism is symbolic. From my study of his works, I've found he has a high regard for Baptism.
From this now learn a proper understanding of the subject, and how to answer the question what Baptism is, namely thus, that it is not mere ordinary water, but water comprehended in God's Word and command, and sanctified thereby, so that it is nothing else than a divine water; not that the water in itself is nobler than other water, but that God's Word and command are added.
Therefore it is pure wickedness and blasphemy of the devil that now our new spirits, to mock at Baptism, omit from it God's Word and institution, and look upon it in no other way than as water which is taken from the well, and then blather and say: How is a handful of water to help the soul? Aye, my friend, who does not know that water is water if tearing things asunder is what we are after? But how dare you thus interfere with God's order, and tear away the most precious treasure with which God has connected and enclosed it, and which He will not have separated? For the kernel in the water is God's Word or command and the name of God which is a treasure greater and nobler than heaven and earth.
You can find the rest of what he has to say on this link under "Luthers Large Catechism" Under Baptism.
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html#sw-lc
Brian this is a link to Martin Luther's thoughts on the Creed. I thought maybe (If I'm understanding you correctly) they may be useful to see what Luther believed or to atleast see that many things that our modern day separated brethren have taken the leader of the reformation's theology & beliefs and even changed the things he still believed.
I thought up above somwhere you asked something like "What is a Sacrament and what's their purpose. So I thought I'd give you a little information on them also. If I'm incorrect then just disregard.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm
I don't know if any of this will help or not, But thank you for letting me try.
At one time in my life I found the contradictory information about Baptism very frustrating. I just wanted to know. Symbolic, or does it cleanse me from my sins?
Peace be to you
Betty
____________________
Patience
"Whenever anything disagreeable or displeasing happens to you, remember Christ crucified and be silent."
St. John of the Cross
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19th, 2006 11:58 pm |
|
| just wanted to thank everyone for the helpful replies.
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13th, 2006 07:06 pm |
|
Wow, I just finished reading all the above posts. I know all of it didn't sink in just yet, but it has helped immensely. The matter of Baptism is one with which I am struggling. I think I will read that book that you mentioned, Betty (Crossing the Tiber." I need to have a clear and precise understanding of what the truth is regarding Baptism. I say "truth" because I have been taught as a Protestant that Baptism has no real effect. Yet inwardly I never really accepted that teaching. Somehow, I've known in some mysterious way though I could not verbalize it, that there is a purpose, necessity, and meaning to Baptism which far exceeds the Protestant understanding. I, however, stuggle with the necessity of baby Baptism because I have been taught that one must FIRST believe BEFORE they are baptized. And this makes sense to me.
Oh well, I will keep studying, reading and most importantly, praying.
In Christ's Love,
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
BettyBoopToo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Camas/Washougal, Washington USA |
| Posts: | 538 |
| First Name: | Betty | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Fist Baptist/Calvary Babtist/Secular Confusion/ Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13th, 2006 09:03 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: Wow, I just finished reading all the above posts. I know all of it didn't sink in just yet, but it has helped immensely. The matter of Baptism is one with which I am struggling. I think I will read that book that you mentioned, Betty (Crossing the Tiber." I need to have a clear and precise understanding of what the truth is regarding Baptism. I say "truth" because I have been taught as a Protestant that Baptism has no real effect. Yet inwardly I never really accepted that teaching. Somehow, I've known in some mysterious way though I could not verbalize it, that there is a purpose, necessity, and meaning to Baptism which far exceeds the Protestant understanding. I, however, stuggle with the necessity of baby Baptism because I have been taught that one must FIRST believe BEFORE they are baptized. And this makes sense to me.
Oh well, I will keep studying, reading and most importantly, praying.
In Christ's Love,
Darlene
Darlene:
I think I'm following you around here and possibly repeating myself. I just put the link to "Crossing the Tiber" and a bunch of other comments on a different thread. I think it's the Are Catholic's Born Again topic.
I hope you check back to that thread, I just shared to comments on my own feeling and belief's I had held regarding Baptism. It's a tricky topic, Atleast it was for me.
Betty
____________________
Patience
"Whenever anything disagreeable or displeasing happens to you, remember Christ crucified and be silent."
St. John of the Cross
|
|
|
Current time is 12:58 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
