 |
| Masaccio, Baptism of the Neophytes (1425) |
Do we need to be baptized to be saved? Catholics say yes, while acknowledging that certain cases exist in which water baptism is impossible, and a person is still saved, like the good thief on the cross. In other words, even if it’s possible that someone may be saved without receiving water baptism, we need to be baptized to be saved. You know about the necessity of baptism (if you didn’t before, you do now!), and have the opportunity to be baptized.
Many Protestant denominations disagree with that answer. Ironically (given their name), Baptists are the most vocal opponents of this view of baptism. In their view, Baptism doesn’t actually do anything. It doesn’t wash away our sins; it doesn’t incorporate us into the Church, the Body of Christ; it doesn’t bring us into the New Covenant; and it certainly doesn’t save us. Instead, Baptism is just a symbol of the fact that we’re already saved. It’s a “testimony” of our salvation, to let everybody know we’re saved.
There are plenty of debated doctrines within Christianity in which an honest reader is left seeing both sides of the issue You might come to the conclusion that X is the right answer, but you can at least see where the people who support Y are coming from, and which Bible verses might lend support to Y.
That’s hard to do on this question. The Baptist view simply isn’t found in Scripture. There aren’t any verses that speak of Baptism as merely symbolic, and there are several that teach the exact opposite. The Old Testament is replete with prefigurements of the Holy Spirit’s role in saving us in Baptism. For example:
- The Spirit hovering over the waters at the dawn of the world (Genesis 1:2)
- Noah’s Ark, in which salvation came through water, as 1 Peter 3 reminds us, and in which a dove crosses the water to show that the Flood is over (Gen. 8:11).
- The parting of the Red Sea, in which salvation once again came from passing through water, and which St. Paul would later call a kind of baptism (1 Corinthians 10:1-4).
- The Mosaic Law, which used ritual washing as a way of signifying cleansing from sins.
- Naaman’s healing in 2 Kings 5, in which a skeptical leper is healed by submerging himself in the waters. He initially objects at the seeming foolishness of a miraculous cleansing through waters (2 Kings 5:11-12).
And the New Testament, as we’ll see, has several passages explicitly describing Baptism in the way that the Catholic Church claims. But perhaps the clearest way to see how well the Baptist case holds up is simply to present it side-by-side with Scripture. Now, I’m using the case laid out by Baptist Distinctives. If you think this overlooks some important argument, I’ll gladly add it. With that in mind, let’s compare the Baptist claims about Baptism with what the Bible teaches:
| The Baptist Claim | The Bible |
|---|---|
|
Question 1. Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
Claim: “Baptists believe that the Bible teaches that baptism is important but not necessary for salvation. [….] Baptists believe that the Bible teaches that baptism symbolizes that a person has been saved and is not a means of salvation.“
|
Truth: Scripture explicitly tells us that for salvation we need both faith and baptism (Mark 16:16), and that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21).
Mark 16:16, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.“
1 Peter 3:18-22, “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, 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, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.“
|
|
Question 2. What did St. Peter says about Baptism in his Pentecost Sermon?
Claim: “In his sermon at Pentecost, Peter urged those who had repented and believed in Christ to be baptized, not that baptism was necessary for salvation but as a testimony that they had been saved (Acts 2:1-41).“
|
Truth: Nowhere in Peter’s Pentecost sermon does he say anything about Baptism being a “testimony” that his listeners “had been saved.” Instead, he tells them it’s (a) for the forgiveness of sins, (b) imparts the Holy Spirit, and (c) saves them.
Acts 2:37-38, “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”
|
|
Question 3. Does Baptism Wash Away Sins?
Claim: “For example, the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43), Saul on the Damascus road (Acts 9:1-18) and the people gathered in Cornelius’ house (Acts 10:24-48) all experienced salvation without the necessity of baptism. [….] Baptism is not a means of channeling saving grace but rather is a way of testifying that saving grace has been experienced. It does not wash away sin but symbolizes the forgiveness of sin through faith in Christ.“
|
Truth: St. Paul doesn’t claim that his sins were washed away on the road to Damascus. Rather, as his own conversion story attests, Baptism does wash away sins (Acts 22:16):
Acts 22:6-16, “As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.’ Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me. And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ And when I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus.
|
As you can see, these passages of the Bible just don’t say what the Baptist side is claiming that they say. Frequently, they say the exact opposite. I want to focus on one verse in particular, Mark 16:16. It’s after the Resurrection, and Jesus is sending His Apostles out to go “and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). And He says this to the Apostles as He is sending them out: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).
Catholics claim that you need faith and Baptism to be saved. Jesus just said you need faith and Baptism. That settles it, right? Not quite. Here’s how Matt Slick of CARM attempts to salvage the Baptist position, in light of Mark 16:16:
This verse is frequently used by baptismal regenerationists to show that baptism is necessary for salvation. It says he who believes and is baptized will be saved. Therefore, they conclude that baptism is a necessary part of becoming saved. But, does this verse prove that baptism is necessary for salvation? Not at all.
Mark 16:16 does not say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Let me show you why. I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief that saves–not belief and going to church. Likewise, if you believe and read your Bible, you’ll be saved. But it isn’t reading your Bible that saves you. Rather, belief in Christ and in His sacrifice is what saves.
Stop and think about this exegesis for a second. Imagine that Jesus really is teaching that belief is all you need to be saved, and that Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation. Can you imagine a worse way to present that than “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”? If the second condition is unnecessary, why did Jesus include it at all? Why in the world wouldn’t He just say “He who believes will be saved”?
In Slick’s analysis, the clause “and is baptized” is meaningless. It adds nothing to the verse. According to this view, the verse means the exact same thing whether that clause is in or out, or whether it’s replaced with any other condition-that’s-not-really-a-condition like reading your Bible or going to church… or, for that matter, anything. Jesus could just as well have said, “He who believes and is left-handed will be saved,” and it wouldn’t matter, since the second condition is just a red herring that has nothing to do with our salvation.
Even Slick doesn’t actually seem particularly convinced by this slick exegesis. He spends most of the rest of the article suggesting that maybe the last part of the Gospel of Mark shouldn’t be considered Scripture.
Imagine that you have a job interview, and the interviewer ends by saying, “If your references check out, and you have five years of job experience, the job is yours.” The interviewer’s just laid out two prerequisites for your securing the position. If you were to take the equivalent of the Baptist view on Baptism, you would understand this to mean that as long as you have good references, you’ve got the job. Then, once you get the job, you can get those five years of job experience.
That interpretation is clearly mistaken. And the mistake is this: the five years’ experience is presented as a prerequisite to your goal, whereas you’re treating it as a result of your goal.
That’s what’s going on with this Baptism question. Baptist Distinctives claims that “baptism symbolizes that a person has been saved and is not a means of salvation” just as Matt Slick believes that “Baptism is simply a public demonstration of the inner work of regeneration.” In other words, after you’re saved, you get baptized. They’re treating it as a result of your salvation, where Jesus describes it as a prerequisite.
While we’re on the subject, permit me a small aside. Mark 16:16, as we’ve seen, presents two prerequisites for salvation: faith and Baptism. Baptists treat one of these, Baptism, as if were actually a consequence of salvation. Calvinists fare worse: they treat both conditions as if they were consequences of salvation. The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches:
As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
The Calvinist view can be summed up this way: from the dawn of time, God divided humanity into two groups: the elect and the reprobate. The elect will be saved, no matter what. The reprobate will be damned, no matter what.
But in this case, the elect’s salvation doesn’t occur at the moment that they’re baptized, or even the moment that they come to faith. Rather, both their faith and their Baptism are the results of God’s eternal decree of salvation. At the very least, at the moment that Christ died for them, this made it impossible for them to go to Hell, according to the (faulty) logic of Limited Atonement. But whether you view the relevant date as 33 A.D. or all eternity, it was well before the lifetime of the believer. There was no moment in which they were, in any meaningful sense, “unsaved.”
So we can contrast the three views like this:
That’s what makes this question in Mark 16:16 so critical. It provides a clean contrast between what Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church teach about the prerequisites for salvation, and what’s taught by the Baptists and Calvinists. And the result of our examination is that yes, contrary to what some Protestants believe, Scripture teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Good post and clear. How unusual for almost-Father Joe Heschmeyer hehe. Seriously good though as per usual and well researched as well. I would only add that those who are in RCIA (the instructive classes for those who are being received into the Church or returning) or aiming towards Trinitarian baptism are still covered per the Church too, similar to the thief on the Cross as you already mentioned at the very beginning of the article, or others who are martyrs who desired to but never received this sacramental gift, and too those who sincerely love Christ as their Savior and Lord but do not fully understand the need of water baptism. Yet as you said clearly those are the exceptions and they do not eliminate the need for this holy sacrament. Beautifully written. I plan to refer many to this page.
Awesome and true. (and those two are not mutually exclusive.)
CATHOLICBOYRICH
RCIA (the instructive classes for those who are being received into the Church or returning)
As a revert myself I am intrigued by that statement. Does it mean that reverts in the country where you live are required to attend RCIA or does it mean that they can if they wish to? Apart from Confession (and convalidation of my marriage) I did not do anything else when returning to the Church. Nobody, including my parish priest, suggested otherwise. Incidentally, having had a Catholic education in the 1950s and the early 1960s I possibly knew the faith better than many Catholics catechised more recently.
It’s encouraged but not necessary. That said… My brother didn’t go through confirmation until adulthood. His parish required that he attend RCIA with those who had never been baptized or only baptized. In other words converts. I guess they thought that he could use a boost. I guess it’s up to the priest to decide. Some parishes I’ve been to encourage people to attend RCIA even if they had the sacraments to fill in gaps. These are parishes that also have other adult education classes. I’m so glad to be seeing more and more of that being offered (although I wish they would throw in some babysitters but that’s my own personal desire).
Matt Slick says, “I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved.” Yes, he could but more important is what would Jesus have meant if he had said it. And who, on earth, would say, “anyone who does X and Y will be saved” if doing Y wasn’t necessary? Anyone who jumps into the sea and can swim will drown?
I am glad you posted this. I once had a conversation with a friend who, after I explained that Catholics believe Baptism washes away Original Sin, said to me, “But that’s a work. Saying Baptism washes away sin is spitting on Christ and his sacrifice.” I was horrified and confused, because I had just said Sacramental grace is a free gift—we don’t merit the grace of Baptism, Jesus gives it by his own power. But what’s spitting on Christ’s sacrifice if not rendering it meaningless by asserting it does nothing to save us from Death, from that Original Sin which is Death to the soul? It’s like St. Paul says. Without the Resurrection, our Faith is pointless. Similarly, if we remain captive to Original Sin whose punishment is Death, Christ has died for nothing. Why limit Christ’s redemptive power to the covering of sin, when his superabundant grace is more than capable of expunging it all? Sure, we still have a tendency to sin, and we’ll still fall into sin, but Jesus came to make us clean and forgive those sins. If we can’t say he wipes those sins away, what’s the point of Christianity?
I hazard to guess that your friend’s point was that Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient and that’s all that is necessary for salvation.
If your friend is Baptist, the problem lies in needing to have belief. Baptists believe that there is at least one criteria (one work) which is needing to believe. Why baptism is out, I really don’t get the logic.
But your friend could also be Calvinist in which case Christ’s sacrifice was for only a chosen few. And it would make more sense for your friend to say something like that. Although it would be ignoring huge amounts of scripture that say the sacraments are necessary.
I hope you’re able to take to him/her again and point out not just Baptism, but the Holy Eucharist too. There’s just so much that says that Jesus’ sacrifice opened up a way for us to attain salvation, but we actually have to do something circumstances permitting.
The logic stems from Luther’s misunderstanding of St. Paul’s teaching. St. Paul said, “We are justified by faith apart from works.” Luther interpreted that, “We are justified by faith alone.” Not realizing that St. Paul was remarking about our attitude in the Sacraments, where we approach the Throne of Grace with an attitude of faith, believing the promise of Christ, we are justified by God. This is why we are Abraham’s children. Because, God sees our faith and credits us with righteousness. Then, the Holy Spirit washes our souls.
But, Luther interpreted that to mean that we need no works at all in order to be justified. Of course, there are a thousand flavors of that doctrine now. Since no Protestant after Luther felt it necessary to adhere to Luther’s teaching either.
The best way to overcome this kind of talk is to quote the Bible to them. Which is what this article has done for us. Jesus said we need faith and baptisim. What else do we need to know?
Even the Church has fallen for the same trap. The CC has some belief in evolution, which is a heathen belief system. But the bible says that Jesus made everything that ever has been or ever will be, but evolution is undirected, according to the “believers” of evolution.
Now the truth is coming out that we, and the entire universe was and is designed by “something”. Of course the evolutionists don’t believe in ID. You will notice the science worshipers are looking more and more to world outside of the earth for their answers of where life came from. That is because the science worshipers know the entire age of the earth is not enough time for evolution to work. So to keep their church of evolution alive, they must look at longer periods of time outside of the earth. The problem is that there is not enough time in the entire universe for evolution to work.
The CC should have believed the bible and not man, we were made by God, not evolution, or as they said in the 1550s; man made himself.
Now we have a Holy Father that believes in all of the lies of the communists. Shouldn’t he stick to the bible and church teachings down through the ages?
Randall,
The pope doesn’t believe in Communism (and has explicitly denied that blatant falsehood). As for evolution, there are certain evolutionary theories that are compatible with the Faith and can be held in good conscience. The papal encyclical Humani Generis covers that in greater detail.
As Catholics, we believe that God made everything. That doesn’t close the door on the question of when He created directly ex nihilo, and when He created indirectly, using the natural processes that He set in place.
So, for example, God created Adam and Eve, and He also created you and me. But Adam and Eve are specially created in a way that you and I are not (you and I have parents who played an instrumental role in our creation). That doesn’t make God any less your Creator than Adam’s.
Of course, there are some forms of evolutionary theory that are incompatible with the faith.
And you, a Catholic, are free not to believe in evolution. But you’re not free to believe that the Church fell into heresy in permitting Her flock to hold to some evolutionary theories. Because that idea is actually heretical.
I.X.,
Joe
You have to be a little bit more clear about the need for faith and baptism in order to have salvation. One of the nastiest discussions I have gotten into about infant baptism is that infants don’t believe so they can’t be baptized.
I’ve made a few points on this that mainly that saying one must believe is an arbitrary thing. People are born with an innate sense of God. So how can one say infants don’t believe? And what may be faith according to ones understanding will vary person to person and even throughout their life.
The other point is and maybe you can confer this or not. Does one even need faith in order to be baptized? Is that even a requirement? My understanding is all you need is water and words. Faith is something separate.
If I understand rightly (and please correct me, Joe, if I’m not!), you’re incorrect on both points.
There’s no such thing in Catholic doctrine as an innate sense of God–that’s a Calvinist idea. However, one could say that man’s inescapable knowledge of his own contingency and of his moral responsibility give him something close to an “innate” sense of Absolute Being. But there’s definitely no such thing as innate *faith* in revelation, and faith is necessary to baptism. Or, more accurately, an *intention* is necessary to baptism: more than just water and words, the person baptizing must intend to do what the Church does She baptizes, and the person being baptized must intend to receive the sacrament. This is a kind of “kernel” of faith. As the Catechism says (1253), “The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: ‘What do you ask of God’s Church?’ The response is: ‘Faith!’ ” Regarding infant baptism, infants have this intention *in* the intention of the “whole company of the saints and the faithful” (Augustine) that the infants receive baptism. As Augustine also says, “in the Church of our Saviour little children believe through others, just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism.” They receive faith from the Church, according to their infant capacity, just as we who are baptized as adults do according to ours: as the Catechism puts it, “faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe.”
Joe,
There’s one other Baptist argument I’ve heard: that the second clause of Mark 16:16, “but he who does not believe will be condemned,” means that he who lacks baptism (but has faith) will *not* be condemned. This argument has a kind of surface plausibility, because one must admit that the Lord’s non-parallel construction is puzzling. I myself understand it to mean that the salvific effect of baptism requires faith, but I expect you have something more rigorous!
I’d also recommend the argument that the Baptist position makes baptism less important than Old Covenant circumcision, its predecessor, because infants could at least receive that! Though I doubt that many Baptists would admit that baptism is the new circumcision.
Reuben
Please excuse my typo: in the second paragraph I meant to write “what the Church does when She baptizes.”
Reuben
In my opinion, infants are saved in Baptism, by the faith of the parents. Jesus is depicted as acting by the faith of the parents to save children from illness throughout the Gospels. One prominent example is the woman of great faith:
Matthew 15:28New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
28 Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith![a] Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour.
St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument against that position is that the child’s parents or sponsors might not have faith–yet we would not dare say that the child is, therefore, not validly baptized. (See ST, III, Q 68, A 9, ob. & resp. 2.) So, as I understand it, when the parents or sponsors have faith, then their faith is part of the “faith of the Church”; and when they do not have faith, the child does not therefore suffer, because their faith is not the whole of the “faith of the Church.”
Augustine again: “little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost.”
Reuben
Hi Reuben,
Will the Catholic Church baptize an infant on the basis of the faith of the Church, if the parents do not agree to raise the child in the Catholic Faith?
Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:
1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;
2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.
§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.
According to the above, the Catholic Church does not baptize any infants if faith is altogether lacking in the parents, unless the infant is in imminent danger of death. This is why, if parents are not married, even if they are both Catholic, the Church will not baptize their infants.
So, I think you and I and St. Thomas are referring to two different things.
1. I am saying that Jesus would heal children on the basis of the parents’ faith. It is because of their faith that the parents’ would bring their children to Jesus for healing. And Jesus would heal them on that basis. These healings were foreshadowing the Sacraments.
2. St. Thomas is saying, that once the child is brought by the parents, the Church’s faith bolsters the parents’ faith. Even if the faith of the parents’ were weak, the faith of the Saints is not. You agree with this and so do I. But it addresses a different question than the one to which I was referring, even if the subject matter is related.
The verses like Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 have baptism coming close after repentance and faith, because baptism is the way you express your faith externally and join a local church. If a person says, “I believe in Christ, but I refuse to be baptized and refuse to join a local church”; then that shows that they are not really repenting nor trusting Christ, it is just empty words. Water Baptism is one of the first steps of obedience and evidence that demonstrates one is truly a believer.
You’re contradicting Scripture:
Mark 16:16
King James Version
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
The Teaching of Jesus is very simple. If one believes, he will seek Baptism and be saved.
But one who does not believe, will not be saved whether he is baptized or not.
Election is not salvation. Salvation only comes after the person repents and believes.
2 Timothy 2:10
“For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen (elect), so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. “
notice the elect don’t have the salvation yet until someone like Paul goes and preaches and suffers and endures all things –
notice the effort put forth in Paul’s evangelism and enduring suffering. The elect are not saved until they hear and repent and believe. They are out there and we must go and share and learn languages and suffer and struggle. Notice the section you quoted from the Westminster Confession of Faith says that God foreordains all the means also – going, preaching, suffering, struggling. “I endure all things” – all the things that we have to do in going and preaching and teaching and learning languages and suffering – in order that the elect may hear, repent and believe and THEN “obtain salvation, and with it eternal glory”.
St. Paul seems to believe he needs to do something in order to be saved:
1 Corinthians 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
Election is not anything. There’s no such thing until the end. Jesus makes that clear. Many are called, few are chosen. The choosing happens after the calling. As in the marriage feast parable. Many were called to the feast, from the highways and hedges. And many showed up. Out of those, one man didn’t have on a wedding garment, so Jesus kicked him out of the wedding. And then he says “For many are called, but few are chosen.” So the choice was long after the call; it was after the guests actually showed up. Thus, the election or choice is AFTER you become a Christian, after you lived your life, after you died, on the Day of Judgement, that’s when the election happens.
David, where it says “many” are called, that means everyone is called.
1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
The wedding feast parable is in contrast to the Old Testament, where only the Jews were called to salvation. However, in the New Testament, God calls all men to salvation in the Sacraments which are given to us in the Mass (i.e. the Wedding Feast of the Lamb). The Mass is a foretaste of the Heavenly Jerusalem.
Election happens, when men accept the invitation (call) and believing in God’s promises submit to the Sacraments calling on the name of the Lord. God sees their faith and declares them righteous, then washes their soul with the Living Water which is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Election does not save anyone; rather election guarantees the results of preaching, that those that are elect from eternity past (Ephesians 1:4, 1:11-13; 2 Thess. 2:13) will eventually in God’s own timing, repent and believe after they hear the message of the gospel.
That’s Catholic Teaching Ken. The difference with you is that you probably judge yourself elect. Whereas, the Church says:
1 Corinthians 4:2-4King James Version (KJV)
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
You could care less about Jesus’ judging your soul, couldn’t you?
Ken, your opinion doesn’t make it so. The bible says repent and be baptized…..done. Secondly, you say they must join a local church to show obedience. What church? They all teach different things. Some teach what you opinion is. Some don’t.
Hi Tom,
Of course baptism follows repentance and faith. That is also why infant baptism is wrong.
What church?
well, I was born in 1961 and came to faith in 1977, many centuries after all the struggles. I don’t accept the Roman Catholic as credible or Biblical. sorry. I don’t accept the United Methodist Church either, that I grew up in that my mother was a part of and taught us.
we are able to discern and judge. “Judge with righteous judgement” (John 7:24)
I Cor. 2:14-16 – the spiritual man can judge, discern, etc.
The Baptist movement is the most Biblical, Reformed, Calvinistic Baptist, combining Luther and Calvin’s views on God’s Sovereignty with believer’s baptism and rejection of state churches/sacralism.
Yes, thank God for the freedom to choose which church we go to. That is part of the whole separation of church from the state persecuting heretics, etc. I am glad for that, in the US constitution.
Ken your opinion of Matt 16:16 is non biblical…but you claim to be biblical. Also, if we are not to go beyond what is written then St Paul in your opinion must be a false teacher, bc he also said “hold fast to the traditions”. 2 Thes 2:15. So what gives? You interpretations are not biblical. Furthermore, whom have come no where close to upholding your view of baptism. Also, no one had your view of Christianity until 15 centuries after Christ. Can you explain this?
Ken,
I think Tom’s point is this. In the original post, I just provided quite a lot of Scriptural support showing that (a) the Bible repeated (and explicitly) presents Baptism as necessary for salvation; (b) the notion that we’re saved and then get Baptized as a symbol of our salvation is found in exactly zero places in Scripture; and (c) the Baptist arguments against regenerative Baptism directly contradict Scripture.
Your response is to just assert (b) over again, claiming that “baptism is the way you express your faith externally and join a local church.” But you’re not actually showing where Scripture teaches this. For all your insistence that we stick to Scripture alone, you’ve yet to provide a single verse presenting your view of Baptism.
Instead, you’re just quoting verses about faith, and then assuming that Scripture treats faith and Baptism the same way that you do (which is, of course, the very thing that I’m denying… and refuting… in this post). If you want to show that the symbolic Baptism view is Biblical, then show me where Scripture says Baptism is symbolic.
Showing me that faith is necessary for salvation doesn’t do the job. Of course faith is necessary: Mark 16:16 presents it as one of the two necessary preconditions. Our problem is just that you’re ignoring and denying the necessity of the other precondition: Baptism.
Otherwise, you’re just claiming that “the Baptist movement is the most Biblical,” despite literally all the evidence presented so far pointing to the opposite conclusion.
I.X.,
Joe
Tom & Ken:
The debate about whether we should go with Scripture and Tradition or Scripture alone is an important one, and it’s worth mentioning that 1 Cor. 4:6 is being taken out of context when it’s used to teach sola Scriptura; even John Calvin recognized that’s not what the verse was saying. But in this case, even if we go with Scripture alone, every single Scriptural reference to Baptism supports its being regenerative. So in my view, there’s no need to go down that rabbit trail just yet. Agreed?
I.X.,
Joe
2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not mean extra-Biblical traditions that came about centuries later, developed further over centuries and proclaimed dogma, say in 1215 (Transubstantiation), 1302 (Unam Sanctum – submission to Pope for salvation), 1545-1563 (Trent’s condemnation of justification by faith alone; 1854 (Immaculate Conception of Mary), 1870 (Papal Infallibility) and 1950 (Bodily Assumption of Mary).
2 Thess 2:15 means the rest of the original oral teachings that Paul taught the Thessalonians that are not in his letters to them, but obviously are evident for us in the writtings of Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Corinthians, I – 2 Timothy, Titus, etc. Since Thessalonians were written early – 50-52 AD, and the others were written later, it makes perfect sense that all the oral teachings and traditions were written down and that is why Jude says, around 80 or 96 AD ( ?) “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”. oral traditions in Scripture were eventually all written down in the 27 books of the NT.
Ken,
This is exactly why I don’t want to go down this rabbit trail. Let’s have an actual discussion (using Scripture alone if you want; or Scripture and two thousand years of unbroken Christian witness, if you’d rather) to see what the true Christian teaching is on regenerative Baptism.
All of these asides about sola Scriptura and Tradition, transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, the ability of the Church to define dogmas, etc., are just distracting us from our common goal.
So if I can steer the conversation back to something more productive, can you point me to where Scripture teaches that Baptism is just a symbol, or where it says it’s not necessary for salvation?
I.X.,
Joe
You need to study the context of 1 Cor. 4 more – the factions in the church – chapters 1-4 – “I am of Paul, I am of Cephas, I am of Apollos, or “I am of Christ” . . . ext.
1 Cor. 4:6 – “do not go beyond what is written” – key to dealing with the divisiveness.
Ultimately, only God knows infallibly. We know as to such an extent as God expects humans to know according to His promises. “I write these things to you who believe in the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” 1 John 5:13
2 Peter 1:10 – be diligent to make your calling and election sure
2 Corinthians 13:5 – examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith.
Psalm 139:23-24 –
“Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me and know my anxious thoughts;
And see if there be any hurtful way in me,
And lead me in the everlasting way.”
Also according to your interpretation of 1 Cor…you should subtract several books from your bible (as you’ve done already) because they weren’t written by the time St Paul wrote 1 Cor.
Ken,
you need to be satisfied with that which God provided for you. An infallible Church to TEACH you all which Christ commanded (Matt 28:19-20).
An infallible Church through God beseeches you and which prays for you in Christ’s stead (2 Cor 5:20).
When you begin to believe the Word of God as it pertains to what it is telling your relationship to the Church, then you will begin to understand the Word of God in Scripture.
Tom S.
No, obviously I dont’ agree with that idea that future books to 1 Cor. don’t count as “rule”, “criterion”, “standard”, “canon”.
Joe,
Even if Calvin disagreed with that in 1 Cor. 4:6 – it seems to me to be teaching in principle, Sola Scripture, as 2 Tim. 3:16 does also, because there are a few books that were written after 2 Tim. 3:16 also. (Jude, 1-3 John, Revelation)
How does 2 Tim 3:16 teach Sola Scriptura when it requires the presence of a Teacher?
Joe,
1 Peter 3:21 clarifies what true baptism means, after saying “corresponding to that” or “is the anti-type” or “is the symbol” – because he later says, “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” – not just the physical water. But rather, it is “an appeal to God for a good conscience” – that phrase describes true repentance. The internal must take place first before the outward physcial symbol has meaning. That is also why infant baptism is wrong.
I Peter 3:20-22 – for more context:
“because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”
Baptism is an “appeal to God for a good conscience” = repentance. The way the people showed their repentance is by confessing their sins and being baptized – Matthew 3, Luke 3 (context of John the Baptist, etc.)
The idea of the internal spiritual reality vs. the external rite as a symbol is a big discussion that would take a lot of time and combox space and other verses.
The baptist interpretation takes into account much more than a few prooftexts.
Also, you used Acts 22:16 as a prooftext. If you study the Greek construction carefully, it says “by calling on His name” is what “washes away your sins” – not just the physical water by itself. the water is the symbol. There is too much nominalism and people who go through the motions without real regeneration and faith that prooves it is not some “magical” kind of thing like the ex opere operato Roman Catholic priestly idea of saying Latin words over something and somehow, “poof”, grace comes down from heaven. That cannot be right, either for baptism, or for the eucharist.
Ken,
The Scripture that you’re appealing to (1 Peter 3:21) to prove that Baptism is a symbol that doesn’t save us is the verse that says Baptism “now saves you”?
You’re right, Baptism doesn’t save you by the removal of dirt from the body. In the second half of v. 21, St. Peter isn’t looking at whether or not Baptism saves us (he’s just established that it does), but how it is that Baptism saves us. And his point is that it isn’t the removal of dirt from the body that does so.
Of course, that’s exactly the Catholic position. We don’t claim that the Sacrament works through removing dirt from the body (if we did, the Baptism ritual would involve a bunch of scrubbing, I assume). Rather, the Sacrament appeals to God for a clean conscience. This is exactly our position.
So if Peter isn’t refuting the Catholic position (since, after all, what he’s refuting sounds nothing like the Catholic position?), what is he doing? Look back to 2 Kings 5:10-14, in the encounter between Elisha and Naaman the leper:
“And Eli′sha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.” But Na′aman was angry, and went away, saying, “Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and cure the leper. Are not Aba′na and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them, and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage. But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?” So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.”
Naaman’s objection is that washing in the waters isn’t going to wash the leprosy off of his skin, and this is the exact objection that Peter is anticipating in 1 Peter 3.
Naaman’s concern is much the same as your own: the whole thing seems too simple to work. He was expecting a flashier miracle. You find the whole idea of the Holy Spirit regenerating us through Baptism too much like “magic.” Both of you doubt that faithfully submerging yourselves in the water will actually do anything. And Scripture says to both of you that you’re wrong, because you’re not seeing past the waters to the invisible working of the Holy Spirit through the waters.
So note how it resolves: when Naaman obeys, and undergoes his “water baptism,” he is actually cleansed. It’s not just a symbol.
I.X.,
Joe
P.S. I’m not understanding your point about antitypes. In typology, the first event is always inferior to what it’s foreshadowing. 1 Peter 3 tells us that Noah’s Ark foreshadows Baptism.
In the case of Noah, passing through water actually saved them, physically. This means that – for the type/antitype to work – Baptism must do something greater.
The Catholic view accounts for this. We believe, as Peter explicitly says, that Baptism saves us, spiritually. That’s the preservation of our souls for eternity, which is greater than the Ark’s preservation of our lives temporally. But your view appears to be that Noah’s Ark actually did something, but that the thing it’s prefiguring (Baptism) was a symbol, and is powerless to save. So typology seems like a big point in the Catholic column, and a serious problem for the Baptist view.
The ark saved them through the waters of judgment and death, but it did not cleanse their soul. We see this by Noah getting drunk and by Ham’s sexual sins.
the key to me is the contrast between “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” or “flesh” (external rite, ceremony) vs. “conscience” or “spirit” or “soul” (internal reality).
Got to get ready for church now. 🙂
Lord wiling, more later or another day.
Baptism is an efficacious sign, which washes the body the way the Spirit washes the soul. Therefore, in Baptism, when you see your dirt washed off your body by the water, you know that your sin has been washed off your soul by the Spirit.
Ken,
You said: “The ark saved them through the waters of judgment and death, but it did not cleanse their soul. We see this by Noah getting drunk and by Ham’s sexual sins.”
We agree on this part. And we also agree that Noah’s Ark is a prefigurement of Baptism. But the prefigurement is always inferior to the fulfillment. So given what we agree on, let’s see how our views of Baptism square with the evidence.
The Catholic view: The Ark (which saved them through water, but did not cleanse their soul) prefigures Baptism (which saves us through the waters, and does cleanse our souls). Typologically, this works, because it means that the salvation through Baptism is greater than the salvation through the Ark.
The Baptist view: The Ark (which saved them through water, but did not cleanse their soul) prefigures Baptism (which is only a symbol, and doesn’t actually save anyone at all). Typologically, this is impossible. The prefigurement would be greater than its fulfillment. Noah’s Ark preserved their mortal lives, which is greater than a purely-symbolic Baptism that isn’t efficacious of anything.
How can you resolve this? That is, how can you hold that the type (the Ark passing through waters) is more efficacious than the antitype (passing through the waters of Baptism)?
I.X.,
Joe
P.S. By the way, thanks for engaging on this subject. I like that we can tackle such a big issue in a charitable way, and with our eyes fixed on Christ, and how to better understand His revelation.
Thanks Joe,
I also appreciate this discussion and your good way of discussing the issue.
I was busy yesterday and could not continue until now.
One of the keys for me for 1 Peter 3:21 is the final phrase, “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
Also, I Peter 1:3 says that we are born again by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”, which harmonizes with Romans 10:9-10 (faith in the resurrection, which presupposes faith in the atonement) and the way I think Peter is treating baptism in 1 Peter 3:21, the same way in Romans 6:1-7 and Colossians 2:11-12 – faith in the atonement of Christ on the cross (Romans 3:24-26) and His resurrection from the dead.
Furthermore, Peter himself says that what cleanses our hearts comes by faith alone – “cleansing their hearts by faith” – Acts 15:9
I think one of the early problems was with not translating the Greek word baptism into its proper meaning. “baptism” means “immersion” or “dipping” or “becoming unified with”.
so, my commentary and interpretation, based on exegesis, context, and harmonizing with other verses in the 27 books of the NT, would be
“. . . eight persons, brought safely through the water (which was a judgment of death by drowning), which signifying or corresponds to, or symbolizing that, – immersion (drowning, going down into the water) now saves you, not the external physical water, (removal of dirt from the flesh), but an appeal to God for a good conscience (repentance and faith) – by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Baptism in water is a symbol of dying with Christ and going down in the water – being dead and buried (Romans 6:3-6); and then being raised up out of the water – symbol of resurrection – and this harmonizes with 1 Peter 1:3 – being born again by (faith in) the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and that last phrase of 1 Peter 3:21 – “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”, which also harmonizes with Colossians 2:11-12 – “through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead”.
So, the symbol of the typology is greater, because the symbol of dying and rising with Christ spiritually is greater than being physically saved from drowning by God in the example of Noah, the ark, and the flood waters of judgement.
KENJANUARY 19, 2015 AT 9:52 AM
Thanks Joe,
I also appreciate this discussion and your good way of discussing the issue.
I was busy yesterday and could not continue until now.
One of the keys for me for 1 Peter 3:21 is the final phrase, “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
How does it change the meaning of the words, “baptism does now save us”?
We also believe it is by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But that doesn’t remove the efficacy of the Baptism.
Also, I Peter 1:3 says that we are born again by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”, which harmonizes with Romans 10:9-10 (faith in the resurrection, which presupposes faith in the atonement) and the way I think Peter is treating baptism in 1 Peter 3:21, the same way in Romans 6:1-7 and Colossians 2:11-12 – faith in the atonement of Christ on the cross (Romans 3:24-26) and His resurrection from the dead.
Romans 10:9-10King James Version (KJV)
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10 is describing our attitude in Baptism. It is in Baptism that we confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus. That harmonizes with Acts 22:16
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Furthermore, Peter himself says that what cleanses our hearts comes by faith alone – “cleansing their hearts by faith” – Acts 15:9
That doesn’t say “alone”. You are reading that into the words. St. Peter, in the same book different chapter, said:
Acts 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
I think one of the early problems was with not translating the Greek word baptism into its proper meaning. “baptism” means “immersion” or “dipping” or “becoming unified with”.
so, my commentary and interpretation, based on exegesis, context, and harmonizing with other verses in the 27 books of the NT, would be
Your commentary and exegesis is non-biblical. We believe the Church which Scripture teaches is the Teacher of the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).
Ken also said:
“. . . eight persons, brought safely through the water (which was a judgment of death by drowning), which signifying or corresponds to, or symbolizing that, – immersion (drowning, going down into the water) now saves you, not the external physical water, (removal of dirt from the flesh), but an appeal to God for a good conscience (repentance and faith) – by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Baptism in water is a symbol of dying with Christ and going down in the water – being dead and buried (Romans 6:3-6); and then being raised up out of the water – symbol of resurrection – and this harmonizes with 1 Peter 1:3 – being born again by (faith in) the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and that last phrase of 1 Peter 3:21 – “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”, which also harmonizes with Colossians 2:11-12 – “through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead”.
So, the symbol of the typology is greater, because the symbol of dying and rising with Christ spiritually is greater than being physically saved from drowning by God in the example of Noah, the ark, and the flood waters of judgement.
All that is Catholic Teaching. But you need to add the Spiritual dimension. The symbol effects that which it symbolizes. The water which symbolically washes away the dirt from your body, brings to effect the Spiritual washing of our souls.
“Buried with Christ. . .”
628 Baptism, the original and full sign of which is immersion, efficaciously signifies the descent into the tomb by the Christian who dies to sin with Christ in order to live a new life. “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”475
1219 The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water”:
The waters of the great flood
you made a sign of the waters of Baptism,
that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.
694 Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit’s action in Baptism, since after the invocation of the Holy Spirit it becomes the efficacious sacramental sign of new birth: just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water, so the water of Baptism truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit. As “by one Spirit we were all baptized,” so we are also “made to drink of one Spirit.” Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified as its source and welling up in us to eternal life.
Ken, you method of exegesis is not in Scripture. Or if it is, show me where it is.
Joe,
Is Calvin’s statement on 1 Cor. 4:6 in his commentary on 1 Cor ? or does he go into that in depth in the Institutes?
Do you have reference for that?
That is part of your problem. There is no truth with Calvin. Shake him off. Stick with Scripture. Scripture will lead you to the Catholic Church.
Joe
You’re right to not go down the rabbit hole. I am confident that if we do it points directly to Catholicism. That was my fault. Ken never comes close to dealing with the mountain of evidence against his interpretation of baptism. He doesn’t even really try. I guess when he started throwing random verses out as some weak defense, I saw easy mistakes on even those verses. Ken let me ask you this….where I’m the bible does it teach that baptism is just a symbol? That is pretty simple. Otherwise we will jump from point to point bc you’re just not interested in dealing with the fact that you view on baptism isn’t found anywhere in the bible.
I am done trying to work through this until Ken can stay on point and deliver any scriptural proof of his view on baptism.
1 Peter 3:21 shows this, with the Greek word, “antitype” αντιτυπος -αντιτυπον – copy, symbol, figure, corresponding to that
and the phrase, “not the removal of dirt from the flesh”
What St. Peter is saying is that the important thing is not the washing of the dirt from the flesh, but the washing of the sin from our soul (i.e. conscience).
Again, also, if someone says, “I believe”, but refuse to be baptized, then that means that the don’t really believe. A true beleiver wants to be baptized and join a Christian/Biblical church.
A true believe also wants to do good works and grow in holiness and be discipled and they hunger for the word and prayer, good teaching, etc.
those who go through the ceremony and don’t have evidence of new birth or good works or repentance or desire for the word and spiritual things, show that the water does not do anything to the soul. If the soul is changed and forgiven by faith alone in the heart, then the outward symbol naturally and necessarily follows.
Again, the Magisterium or Teacher established by Jesus Christ says that Mark 16:16 means that one must believe AND be baptized to be saved in this life. If we believe and are baptized, we walk with the Saints.
But those of you who claim to believe, but deny the power of God to wash away your sins by water, you don’t walk amongst the Saints. That is why, probably, the Holy Spirit does not teach you to pray through and with the Saints. Nor can they represent you in the after life. You walk alone and you will face the judgement of Jesus Christ alone, without witnesses to say anything in your behalf. You do not know them and they will not know you. And if you don’t know His brethren, will Christ know you? And if you don’t know His children, will God know you? And if you don’t listen to His voice speaking to you through His Church, will God listen to you?
physical water cannot cleanse the soul or conscience, so baptism does not cleanse the soul or wash away sins.
forgiveness of sins comes only by repentance and faith in Christ – Luke 24:46-47; Acts 13:38-39
Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed (justified, δικαιοω / dikaiow) from all things, from which you could not be freed (justified, δικαιοω/ dikaiow) through the Law of Moses.
Acts 15:9 – “cleansing their hearts by faith”
Romans 3:28, 4:1-16,
5:1 – “therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God”
Ephesians 2:8-9
Galatians 2:16
Philippians 3:9
John 3:15-16; 5:24; 1:12-13; 20:30-31
Acts 16:31
etc.
DeMaria wrote: “Again, the Magisterium or Teacher established by Jesus Christ says that Mark 16:16 means . . . “
No, since it was not the Papacy or Roman Catholicism, that you are reading back into Matthew 16 and Luke 22 and John 21, etc.
There was not even a mono-episcopate in the earliest decades –
Acts 14:23
Acts 20:17, 28
Titus 1:5-7
Philippians 1:1
1 Peter 5:1-4
1 Clement 42-44
Didache 15
Ignatius was first to speak of a “mono-episcopacy” around 110-117 AD.
Before that, in Scripture and earliest writings – 1 Clement and Didache – it was a plurality of elders equal to each other in each church, and deacons.
There is no such thing as Papacy in the early church.
“Ignatius was first to speak of a “mono-episcopacy” around 110-117 AD.
……There is no such thing as Papacy in the early church.”
It is incredible that you cannot put faith in the teaching of an Apostolic Father such as Ignatius of Antioch, who was the third bishop of Antioch, and taught by the Apostle John! If you cannot trust Ignatius, then who amongst the early church fathers can you trust??
Here is what this great early Church Father and Martyr, St. Ignatius, wrote in his letter to the Smyrnæans, regarding order and authority in the early Church:
Chapter VIII.—Let nothing be done without the bishop.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out [through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord’s might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast. But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.”
**************
Regardless if this letter mentions a pope or not, you can certainly get an idea of the high level of order and organization that was guiding the early Church.
KENJANUARY 19, 2015 AT 10:14 AM
DeMaria wrote: “Again, the Magisterium or Teacher established by Jesus Christ says that Mark 16:16 means . . . “
No, since it was not the Papacy or Roman Catholicism, that you are reading back into Matthew 16 and Luke 22 and John 21, etc.
The Papacy is precisely what is established in Matt 16:18-19.
There was not even a mono-episcopate in the earliest decades –
….
Scripture says that Jesus established one Church.
Matthew 16:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
And one faith.
Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
We can go back and forth a thousand times. But you have no authority to interpret the Word of God in opposition to the Church which Jesus Christ built. Unless, you’re appointing yourself, pope. Are you?
When analyzing Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”, I think it’s important to consider a parallel account, that of Matthew 28:19 for more perspective, as both of these texts are found in the very last paragraphs of these Gospel accounts. Matthew reads:
“[19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
Note that in Matthew, there is a stress on the role of teaching. First it is “Teach all nations”, then “baptizing them”, and then again: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”. So the Apostles, and their future disciples and successors(i.e.. Bishops), would be the ones who would effectively fulfill the Lord’s command to “teach all nations”, and IF the converts believe in the doctrines of Christ taught by these authorized teachers, ONLY then will they be ‘baptized’. These new believers have confirmed that they understand the doctrines, customs and admonitions of Christ’s successors which Christ Himself confirms in their truth, by saying: “and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
That Jesus was speaking literally when He said this about His actual presence, we have the quote that Joe gives above from the Acts of the Apostles: “And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.”
So, considering all of this, we can see that it is THE Church that is the teacher and baptizer of all the faithful until the ‘consummation of the world”, and it is the Lord Himself who is with His Church, perpetually, until this consummation of the world.
This Church is not hidden, but is and has always been, very visible even as it was in the days of St. Paul when he was persecuting it. And the Church is not the Bible, but rather, a community of living souls who live and teach not only the Bible, but far more than the Bible, they teach the Living Christ who is in the midst of them. It is these souls who baptise new converts, and teach the nations the doctrines of Christ throughout the centuries. They are the ones who fulfill the commands that Jesus taught, and break the Eucharistic Bread that Jesus commanded them to do, thereby feeding the flock of Christ with His own body, blood, soul and divinity.
Those who do not follow the doctrines of this Church, are highly mistaken, as it is the one and only Church ever founded by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is His Mystical Body.
The water seems to be a figure of judgment/death by drowning – In Genesis 6-9 and 1 Peter 3:20-21. The water does not wash, it judges and drowns and condemns. The water did not save, but rather the ark did in Genesis 6-9. The anitype is being “in Christ” by immersion into His death, burial and resurrection. The water symbolizing dying and being buried with Christ. Coming out of the water is symbolizing resurrection and new life.
The ark is safety and salvation, but in the antitype – a person who is “in Christ” is saved – Romans 6:1-7; Ephesians 1:3-14, etc.
In Christ, dying with Him spiritually, and being buried with Him, and being raised up with Him – and baptism (immersion) is a symbol of that unity/union with Christ. We are “in Christ” by faith alone, then the water baptism follows as the external rite of becoming a member of the body of Christ, entry into membership of a local church, and picture/symbol of the internal reality of regeneration, which only the Spirit wrought, followed immediately by repentance and faith alone.
“The water does not wash, it judges and drowns and condemns”
When Jesus took water and a towel to wash the feet of Peter at the Last Supper, was Jesus trying to use the symbol of water in such a way as to indicate ‘judging, drowning and condemning’??
Or might this be interpreted correctly as truly a spiritual washing, such as is found in the Church’s Holy Sacrament of Penance, as Jesus Himself indicates when He says to Peter:
“He cometh therefore to Simon Peter. And Peter saith to him: Lord, dost thou wash my feet? [7] Jesus answered, and said to him: What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. [8] Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. [9] Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. [10] Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are clean, but not all.
[11] For he knew who he was that would betray him; therefore he said: You are not all clean.” (John 13:6)
Obviously the water in John 13 cleans the feet; but the water in Genesis 6-9 drowns and judges and condemns sinners.
But even that (washing the feet, after being out “in the world”, we get dirty, the bath is a symbol of baptism, but they still took full baths sometimes – once a week ( ?); the food washing is a symbol of the need for constant confession and cleansing – 1 John 1:5-10; 2:1-2 – verse 9 – confession of sin; verse 7 – the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin; 2:2 – He is the propitiation of our sins . . . etc. Confession of sin and looking to the atonement on the cross for cleansing. in context – John 15:2-3 looks back to John 13:9-11 – “You are already clean because of the word which I spoke to you.” Judas is not there in John 15 – they are cleansed by the word. (regeneration). Judas was not regenerated.
sorry, I meant foot washing
How about Naaman? Was he cleansed in the water of the Jordan? Or not?
Or do you deny that God can work through water to effect healing or washing sins from the soul?
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
If baptism is only symbolism, with no actual effect on the soul, then why might it be that a very significant sign was shown when Jesus Himself entered the Jordan and was baptized by John? Doe the Lords baptism teach us nothing of our own? :
“And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. [17] And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Yes, Naaman was healed and God did a miracle of healing his leprosy through his obedience of dipping in the water seven times. in 2 Kings 5; it was a physical healing. But it does not say that the waters caused regeneration or forgiveness of sins or gave him a new heart. Water cannot cleanse the soul. The water in 2 Kings 5 was used as a means for God to work a physical miracle – healing his leprosy.
Again, if baptism is ONLY ‘symbolic’, how can such ‘symbolism’ have such powerful, holy and immediate effects in those that have been baptized – wherein the grace of Holy Spirit is clearly manifested (even as it was at the Baptism of Jesus) – such as is encountered in the scripture below? :
“Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:5)
KENJANUARY 20, 2015 AT 11:17 PM
Yes, Naaman was healed and God did a miracle of healing his leprosy through his obedience of dipping in the water seven times. in 2 Kings 5; it was a physical healing. But it does not say that the waters caused regeneration or forgiveness of sins or gave him a new heart. Water cannot cleanse the soul. The water in 2 Kings 5 was used as a means for God to work a physical miracle – healing his leprosy.
Do you think its easier for God to accomplish a physical healing by water than it is for Him to accomplish a spiritual healing by water?
Or are you implying that God can’t accomplish a spiritual healing by water?
Mark 2:9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
AWLMS,
Ignatius was great on the Deity of Chirst; very early and important. (about 107-117 AD) He calls Jesus “God” about seven times in those seven letters. Excellent for showing that Nicea did not make up the Deity of Christ suddenly in 325 AD.
But, exalting one of the presbyter-bishops out and making him over the college of elders is not Biblical – don’t blame me, look carefully at all the verses I gave you above.
Jerome called that a “custom” because of the practical benefit of getting rid of heresy.
Others would say, “you cannot get things done without a strong leader who can make decisions”, etc.
KENJANUARY 19, 2015 AT 3:16 PM
AWLMS,
Ignatius was great on the Deity of Chirst….But, exalting one of the presbyter-bishops out and making him over the college of elders is not Biblical….
How biblical is your methodology for exegesis of Scripture? Does Scripture say, “Read the Scripture and understand it by yourself?” Or does Scripture say:
Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Show me your method for understanding Scripture, from Scripture. Here’s another which supports the Catholic methodology:
Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readiest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Bump.
How biblical is your methodology for exegesis of Scripture? Does Scripture say, “Read the Scripture and understand it by yourself?” Or does Scripture say:
Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Show me your method for understanding Scripture, from Scripture. Here’s another which supports the Catholic methodology:
Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readiest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Hebrews 13:7 (NASB)
Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.
ESV:
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
μνημονεύετε τῶν ἡγουμένων ὑμῶν οἵτινες ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ὧν ἀναθεωροῦντες τὴν ἔκβασιν τῆς ἀναστροφῆς μιμεῖσθε τὴν πίστιν
The word is “leaders”, “those who led you”, not “rule over you”.
I have pastors/elders/teachers who I am accountable to in a local Baptist Church.
Ken said:
I have pastors/elders/teachers who I am accountable to in a local Baptist Church.
Do they account for your soul? Do you obey them implicitly?
Hebrews 13:17King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Do they beseech you in God’s name? Do they pray for you in Christ’s stead?
2 Corinthians 5:20King James Version (KJV)
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
My priests do so for me. And I obey their commands as though they were my Fathers in the Spirit.
What about you?
Ken,
That Christ is God has been easily understood by the Church since the Resurrection of the Lord (and before that for those who had the faith that Jesus praised while He was teaching in Israel). So, in my opinion St. Ignatius provides nothing special in this regard, because faith in Christ as God was very fundamental in the early Church. What is more basic in Christianity than… עִמָּנוּאֵל (‘Immanu’el) “God is with us”? (that is, if you are not an Arian).
But in my opinion, what Ignatius is indeed to be valued for is for quote’s such as the one that I cited above. Here we gain insight into how the early Church treated some very important elements concerning the celebration of the Eucharist, and also various aspects of Church development and hierarchical structure. These may seem mundane to those who only want to discuss or debate theological ideas, but show some details into how the early Church developed in it’s historical day to day reality.
By the time we get to the first Council of Nicaea, we can see again how this hierarchy and structure was expanded even further. Just read a few pages from the ‘canons’ of Nicaea, and you will observe various dillemma’s that the Council Fathers were trying to clarify and resolve in the Church at that time. Many Christians overlook these canons, and only concern themselves with the Nicaean Creed or early Christian heresies such as Arianism. But even as St. Ignatius reveals insights into the structure and functioning of the early Church, so do these simple canons of Nicaea. Most of these canons are disciplinary in nature. For instance they define how bishops relate to priests and deacons regarding the distribution of the Holy Eucharist both to each other and to the laity. Other canons discuss territorial issues in the archiepiscopacy of Alexandria. Others, also, relate to some sex and chastity related items, castration of priests, prevention of scandal in the Church, etc…
These overlooked items are a window into the early Church that reveal that the Catholic Church that came together at Nicaea is fundamentally the same as the Catholic Church of today, and it still needs to address both mundane and moral issues that present themselves in our modern world. (i.e.. abortion, birth control, just war, divorce and remarriage, nuclear weapons, etc..) And the modern Church uses old ways to resolve it’s modern problems: Ecumenical councils. So, in this context, we can understand the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church, Vatican II, which was held 1540 years after the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. And it was trying to do the very same thing as the First Ecumenical Council: to resolve Church problems and to clarify theological and moral misunderstandings, only this time addressing issues and problems of our modern world.
Error: 1540 years should be 1637 years after Nicaea.
From Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament:
“Not to go beyond the things which are written”
(to Mh uper a gegraptai).
It is difficult to reproduce the Greek idiom in English.
The article to is in the accusative case as the object of the verb maqhte (learn) and points at the words “Mh uper a gegraptai,” apparently a proverb or rule, and elliptical in form with no principal verb expressed with mh, whether “think” (Auth.) or “go” (Revised).
There was a constant tendency to smooth out Paul’s ellipses as in: 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Corinthians 1:26; 1 Corinthians 1:31. (Merriam-Webster – Ellipsis – the act of leaving out one or more words that are not necessary for a phrase to be understood.)
Lightfoot thinks that Paul may have in mind O.T. passages quoted in:
1 Corinthians 1:19 – For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
1 Corinthians 1:31 – Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 3:19 – As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness.”
1 Corinthians 3:20 – and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”
So, Paul is most likely referring to the OT passages he quoted earlier in the letter, not to all of Scripture.
Interesting that there were four factions in 1 Corinthians chapters 1-4 – “I am of Paul; I am of Cephas (Peter), I am of Apollos; and I am of Christ”
If Peter was the first Pope, and 1 Cor. is inspired, why didn’t Paul did just say, “submit to Peter and his group, they are the right ones and living voice” ??
Instead, we have Paul’s statement as the solution to the disunity and factions – “Do not go beyond what is written” 1 Cor. 4:6
It seems like Sola Scriptura in principle, as is 2 Tim. 3:16, since there were still some inspired books to be written later.
KENJANUARY 20, 2015 AT 11:23 PM
Interesting that there were four factions in 1 Corinthians chapters 1-4 – “I am of Paul; I am of Cephas (Peter), I am of Apollos; and I am of Christ”
If Peter was the first Pope, and 1 Cor. is inspired, why didn’t Paul did just say, “submit to Peter and his group, they are the right ones and living voice” ??
Instead, we have Paul’s statement as the solution to the disunity and factions – “Do not go beyond what is written” 1 Cor. 4:6
That’s not the solution. St. Paul is telling them that Paul, Peter and Apollos all represent Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Instead, we have Paul’s statement as the solution to the disunity and factions – “Do not go beyond what is written” 1 Cor. 4:6
He doesn’t say to go ONLY to what is written. To not go beyond what is written is the Catholic Doctrine of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. And this is what St. Paul is expounding.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Note now St. Paul says he was sent to PREACH the Gospel. That is the Magisterium.
It seems like Sola Scriptura in principle, as is 2 Tim. 3:16, since there were still some inspired books to be written later.
2 Tim 3:16 says All Scripture, not Scripture alone, was inspired, and is useful, not necessary, for TEACHING, PREACHING, ADMONISHING AND CORRECTING the faith that the man of God may be made perfect.
Who’s teaching, preaching admonishing and correcting? Is it the Bible alone? Or is some person doing the actual teaching? That, again, substantiates the Catholic model of Magisterium. Not Scripture alone.
Ken your scriptural gymnastics are unfortunate. Show me one early christian who believed as you do. You can’t. Your exegesis is amatuer. You fall back to sola scriptura. So let me ask you, where in scripture are the books of the bible. Or who compiled the books of the bible. Why do you have an incomplete bible. How does 2 tim 3:16 say anything remotely close to sola scriptura? And St. Paul did agree with baptism washing away his sins…..bc scripture, mr sola scriptura, says so. His sins were washed away when he was baptized. So again what do you have? I see nothing. WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY IT IS A SYMBOL? Why can’t you produce this? We all know the answer. And so do you.
καὶ νῦν τί μέλλεις ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ
Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’ Acts 22:16
επικαλεσαμενος = adverbial participle of means = “by calling upon His name” – show how sins are “washed away” or forgiven. water baptism symbolized that.
The text does not say, “be Baptized as though you were washing away your sins.” You are reading that into the text.
You are not reading the participle, “by calling upon His name”
Yes, I am.
Acts 22:16 KJV
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Acts 22:16New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
16 Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’
New International Version
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
New American Standard Bible
‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’
International Standard Version
So now, what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away as you call on his name.’
You are adding the word “by”.
You obviously don’t know what a Greek participle is and how one has to analyze whether the participle is adjectival or adverbial, and if adverbial, to go through the various contextual possibilities of what it could be.
some of the choices that are possible, that context tells us:
the instrumental particple of means fits: (C)
Adverbially
Participles can also be used in the same way that an adverb is, to modify a verb. There are different classifications and uses of adverbial participles. (These are also referred to as ‘Circumstantial participles’.) One of the most exciting and enlightening areas of Greek grammar for the student of the New Testament comes in identifying the use of these adverbial participles. Listed below are some of the most common uses found in the New Testament. For a complete list of all adverbial participles (and all non-adjectival uses), please view the chart at the bottom of this page.
A. Temporal Participle
i) Translated with English words ‘while’ or ‘after’
ii) Shows ‘when’ something happened.
iii) Mark 9:5 ‘All the crowd, seeing Him, were amazed.’
(“When all the crowd saw Him, they were amazed.”)
B) Causal Participle
i) Indicates the Cause or Reason
ii) Answers the question “Why?”
iii) Translated by ‘because’ (or ‘since’)
iv) John 4:6 “Jesus, being wearied, sat.” (‘Because Jesus was wearied, He sat.’)
v) Perfect Adverbial participles very often belong to this category (i.e. convey this meaning).
C) Instrumental Participle (Participle of Means)
i) Shows “How?”
ii) Translated with ‘by’ or ‘by means of’
iii) Matt. 27:4 – “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.”
D) Participle of Purpose (Telic Use)
i) Indicates the purpose of the action of the finite verb
ii) Answers the questions ‘Why?’
iii) Should be translated with the English ‘infinitive’ or ‘with the purpose of’ or ‘in order to’. A simple ‘-ing’ translation misses the point.
iv) (A future adverbial participles always belong here.)
v) Luke 10:25 “A certain lawyer stood up testing Him (in order to test Him), saying, ‘Teacher, what must I do to gain eternal life?’”
E) Participle of Concession
i) Indicates that the action of the main verb is true in spite of the state or action of the participle.
ii) Usually translated ‘although’
iii) Romans 1:21 “although they knew God, they did not glorify (honor) Him as God.”
iv) 1 Peter 1:8 “whom having not seen (although you have not seen Him), you love”
KENJANUARY 26, 2015 AT 9:44 PM
You obviously don’t know what a Greek participle is and how one has to analyze whether the participle is adjectival or adverbial, and if adverbial, to go through the various contextual possibilities of what it could be.
Are you fluent in Greek? Because I rely on the English translations and they seem very clear.
some of the choices that are possible,
So, its a “possible” choice. Yet, no one seems to have made the same choice as you.
that context tells us:
The context is the existing Tradition of Baptism to wash away sins while calling on the name of the Lord.
the instrumental particple of means fits: (C)
Adverbially
Participles can also be used in the same way that an adverb is, to modify a verb. There are different classifications and uses of adverbial participles. (These are also referred to as ‘Circumstantial participles’.) One of the most exciting and enlightening areas of Greek grammar for the student of the New Testament comes in identifying the use of these adverbial participles. Listed below are some of the most common uses found in the New Testament. For a complete list of all adverbial participles (and all non-adjectival uses), please view the chart at the bottom of this page.
A. Temporal Participle
i) Translated with English words ‘while’ or ‘after’
Yeah. I like the participle, “while” calling upon the name of the Lord.
ii) Shows ‘when’ something happened.
iii) Mark 9:5 ‘All the crowd, seeing Him, were amazed.’
(“When all the crowd saw Him, they were amazed.”)
B) Causal Participle
i) Indicates the Cause or Reason
ii) Answers the question “Why?”
iii) Translated by ‘because’ (or ‘since’)
iv) John 4:6 “Jesus, being wearied, sat.” (‘Because Jesus was wearied, He sat.’)
v) Perfect Adverbial participles very often belong to this category (i.e. convey this meaning).
C) Instrumental Participle (Participle of Means)
i) Shows “How?”
ii) Translated with ‘by’ or ‘by means of’
The how has already been answered.
Why tarriest thou? Arise, be baptized, why? in order to wash away your sins while you call upon the name of the Lord.
iii) Matt. 27:4 – “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.”
D) Participle of Purpose (Telic Use)
i) Indicates the purpose of the action of the finite verb
ii) Answers the questions ‘Why?’
iii) Should be translated with the English ‘infinitive’ or ‘with the purpose of’ or ‘in order to’. A simple ‘-ing’ translation misses the point.
iv) (A future adverbial participles always belong here.)
v) Luke 10:25 “A certain lawyer stood up testing Him (in order to test Him), saying, ‘Teacher, what must I do to gain eternal life?’”
E) Participle of Concession
i) Indicates that the action of the main verb is true in spite of the state or action of the participle.
ii) Usually translated ‘although’
iii) Romans 1:21 “although they knew God, they did not glorify (honor) Him as God.”
iv) 1 Peter 1:8 “whom having not seen (although you have not seen Him), you love”
All that is besides the point, because you are a mere man who has identified possibilities. But you are not infallible. Yet the Catholic Church is declared the Teacher of the Wisdom of God in Scripture. And is declared the pillar and bulwark of Truth, in Scripture. And Scripture admonishes us to learn from our rulers in the Faith.
And you’re not my ruler. You deny the right of any man to be a ruler in the faith.
So, why are you here trying to tell me to understand the Word of God in an unbiblical manner? That’s what I want to know.
DeMaria wrote:
Why tarriest thou? Arise, be baptized, why? in order to wash away your sins while you call upon the name of the Lord.
now you are reading into the text, since the Greek word, “wash” is in the imperative mode – not purpose “in order to”. the participle modifies the Imperative (command) – and the word, “and” (kai) shows it is saying “and wash away your sins, by calling on the name of the Lord”. This harmonizes well with 1 Peter 3:21 – “an appeal to God for a good conscience” – it is the person’s heart repentance and faith that is key, the external water is the symbol of that.
KENJANUARY 27, 2015 AT 7:37 AM
now you are reading into the text, since the Greek word, “wash” is in the imperative mode – not purpose “in order to”. the participle modifies the Imperative (command) – and the word, “and” (kai) shows it is saying “and wash away your sins, by calling on the name of the Lord”. This harmonizes well with 1 Peter 3:21 – “an appeal to God for a good conscience” – it is the person’s heart repentance and faith that is key, the external water is the symbol of that.
It is the efficacious symbol, Ken. Without the washing, nothing would happen.
The fact that it is “imperative” means that St. Ananias was anxious that the washing be accomplished in order that the sins could be removed as quickly as possible. That is why he asks, “What are you waiting for?”
Here’s the thing, Ken. You don’t have the faith, in Jesus Christ, to believe that He can accomplish this washing of the soul, by the washing of water. You don’t believe it. You don’t have faith in Jesus Christ.
That’s the bottom line, Ken. Protestants don’t have faith that God can speak through His Church. They don’t have faith that God can work through material means. They don’t have the faith that Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, can lead her infallibly.
It is well written in Scripture:
Colossians 2 King James Version (KJV)
1 For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;
2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.
5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
We believe in Christ. Therefore we believe in Baptism. Wherein we are risen with Him through the operation of the Father in the Holy Spirit.
2 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Cor. 4:6 teach Sola Scriptura in principle while Scriptures are still being written. Whatever is “God-breathed” is inspired Scripture. Whatever then is found to be “God-breathed” is already “canon” (standard, criterion, rule) the moment it is written. They were all individual scrolls. codex not even invented until after 200-250 AD. the scrolls of the gospels and letters had to get traveled around and copied to all the places and combined in codex forms; since they were individually written to different areas and people. Took a while since the church was under persecution. Origen lists all 27 books around 250, over 100 years before Athanasius’ famous list in 367 AD in 39 Festal letter.
KENJANUARY 26, 2015 AT 5:09 PM
2 Timothy 3:16… teach Sola Scriptura in principle while Scriptures are still being written.
No. 2 Tim 3:16 assumes the presence of a Magisterium for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
….1 Cor. 4:6 teach Sola Scriptura in principle while Scriptures are still being written.
Again, no, the subject matter here, is not even doctrine. It is the estimation of men.
1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
And reproof against holding factions in the Church. Not only that, but it says nothing about Scripture alone. From the context, he is speaking of that which is written in his example.
Whatever is “God-breathed” is inspired Scripture.
Let’s see. Is Jesus, God? Did Jesus breathe upon the Apostles?
John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Even earlier. Did God breathe upon some dust and create man?
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Whatever then is found to be “God-breathed” is already “canon” (standard, criterion, rule) the moment it is written.
Nope. Before it was canon, it had to be found. And the Church is she who found the canon.
They were all individual scrolls. codex not even invented until after 200-250 AD. the scrolls of the gospels and letters had to get traveled around and copied to all the places and combined in codex forms; since they were individually written to different areas and people. Took a while since the church was under persecution. Origen lists all 27 books around 250, over 100 years before Athanasius’ famous list in 367 AD in 39 Festal letter.
And it took the Catholic Church, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to identify everyone of them.
It was NOT the current Roman Catholic Church, but the early catholic church, which we also are a part of.
It is the same Catholic Church which I attend today.
Justin Martyr (100-165): Christian philosopher and apologist
First Apology(155 A.D), chapter 66
And this food is called among us the Eucharist of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.
Documentation of Origen’s list around 250 AD, from Homilies in Joshua 7:1.
http://michaeljkruger.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon-10-athanasius-festal-letter-367-a-d-is-the-first-complete-list-of-new-testament-books/
250 ad. Origen was a Catholic.
Origen (182AD-254AD)
This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).
Or do you know any non-Catholics who believe in the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary?
Everybody was “catholic” (Universal, according to the whole, κατα ‘ολικος )- back then. It did not mean what you are reading back into it in early history –
Origen does not say “Immaculate conception” – he just uses the word “immaculate” by itself. (if your reference is true) Who knows what he meant? holy, pure?
That does not mean “sinless” or “conceived without sin”.
He meant what he said. Immaculate. It is you who is doing your best to read out of history that which identifies the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Origen was also a heretic, and castrated himself. He was not infallible. We are able to discern what he wrote that was right, vs. what he wrote that was wrong.
The Catholic Church is the one who declared him heretic. And the Catholic Church has taken from his good teachings and discerned them already. Long before you were even a light in your mother’s eyes. So?
What makes you think you have any authority to teach anything when you deny that authority to the Church which Jesus Christ established? Do you not believe that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church? Do you not believe that Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, is infallible? And being infallible, don’t you think that He can guide the Church infallibly?
Why then, do you insert yourself in Jesus’ place?
“Everybody was “catholic” (Universal, according to the whole, κατα ‘ολικος )- back then.”
No, everybody was not “catholic”, but rather, only those baptized faithful who were personally united to, and subject to, a validly ordained bishop of the Church, living in a city, territory or diocese specifically allocated to that bishop at the time of his ordination to the episcopate.
It’s pretty easy to understand if you take about 8 minutes to read the 20 individual ‘Canons’ of the Council of Nicaea . Really basic stuff. Here is a sample:
Canon 5
Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.
Canon 6
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Canon 7
Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.
Canon 8
Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church……
Canon 9
If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have made confession of crime, and men acting in violation of the canon have laid hands upon them, notwithstanding their confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic Church requires that [only] which is blameless.
Canon 10
If any who have lapsed have been ordained through the ignorance, or even with the previous knowledge of the ordainers, this shall not prejudice the canon of the Church; for when they are discovered they shall be deposed.
By “everybody”, I meant “everybody who was orthodox, east and west”; I meant there was only one church in the early centuries. I meant non heretics. Obviously I was not including Gnostics or Ebionites or Arians or other types of early heretics.
By the “cathari”, it meant the Novatianists, not the Cathari of the middle ages.
Canon 6 is a big contradiction to Roman claims. It shows the beginning understanding of the 5 pentarchy sees of Alexandria, Antioch and in Canon 7, of Jerusalem. (later Constantinople and Rome) the bishop in each area had jurisdiction. There was no Roman bishop who was “bishop over all other bishops”.
Canon 6 …since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also….
There was no Roman bishop who was “bishop over all other bishops”.
Yeah, there was. The Canons of Nicea are to be understood in the context of the Catholic Church.
And, note that the canons describe an authoritative Church of which there is no equivalent in Protestantism. The only equivalent in the world, is the Catholic Church.
Read all the canons, Kevin. Then look for such a Church today. You won’t find that Church in the documents of the Protestants. Only in the Canons of the Catholic Church do you find one that KNOWS She holds the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.
There’s no invisible Church here. No invisible unity with wicked gatherings such as described in the WCF. This is the Church which Jesus Christ established and which wields His power upon earth, without apology.
No. 2 Tim 3:16 assumes the presence of a Magisterium for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
No. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 assumes pastors/elders/teachers for the local church in Ephesus and that the Scriptures are sufficient to fully equip them for the work of ministry. No such thing as a “Magisterium”.
Magisterium means “Teacher”, Ken. And Jesus Christ established the Church as the Magisterium or Teacher of His Word:
Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
You are interpreting the Scripture apart from the Teaching of Jesus Christ. I follow Jesus Christ, the head of the Church.
I don’t know Latin, but the word for teacher is “doctores” (Ephesians 4:11), from which we get the English word “doctor”.
I follow Jesus also, the Master Teacher and Lord. We both claim that. Problem is your church left His teaching when it started adding things that contradict Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28, 4:1-16; 5:1; Philippians 3:9 – things like purgatory, exalting Mary too much, praying to Mary, the treasury of merit, icons, statues, praying to them and kissing them (objects of wood and stone), visiting graves and praying to the dead; transubstantiation, bowing down to bread and wine, ex opere operato priestly powers (magic by Latin formulas), Papal doctrines, indulgences, etc.
I fully believe Matthew 28:18-20 and have actually obeyed it by going to a Muslim country and evangelizing and learning another language and talking to Muslims about Christ as Lord, God in the flesh, eternal Son, crucified, dead, buried, risen from the dead, ascended to the right hand of the Father, praying for us now; and will come again to judge. I obey the Great commission. Roman Churches give a bad witness to Muslims by their statues of Mary and praying to her; giving Muslims the impression that Mary is a goddess and the statues look like idolatry. praying to statues looks like idolatry to Muslims. The author of the Qur’an thought the Trinity was “The Father, The Mother, and the Son” – see Surah 5:116; 5:72-78; 6:101.
The exalting of Mary and false doctrines about her – Immaculate conception and sinlessness and statues and prayers to her are a violation of Matthew 28:18-20 because it is not “teaching them” the truth. It is teaching false doctrine and false practice.
Roman Catholicism also contradicts Acts 13:38-39.
KENJANUARY 27, 2015 AT 6:29 AM
I don’t know Latin, but the word for teacher is “doctores” (Ephesians 4:11), from which we get the English word “doctor”.
Thanks for admitting there’s something you don’t know. Finally.
Magisterium is the English word for Teaching authority. See the Merriam Webster dictionary
Definition of MAGISTERIUM
: teaching authority especially of the Roman Catholic Church
It comes from the Latin, Teacher
Etymology of the Latin word magisterium
the Medieval Latin word magisterium (master; office of superintendent, president, master)
derived from the Late Latin word magister (teacher, tutor, master)
derived from the Latin word magis (bigger; greater)
derived from the Latin word magnus (large; full, complete, utter; great; mighty; distinguished; large, great, big)
derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *meg- (great)
I follow Jesus also, the Master Teacher and Lord.
If you followed Jesus, you would follow the Catholic Church, because it is through the Catholic Church that He speaks.
We both claim that. Problem is your church left His teaching when it started adding things that contradict Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28, 4:1-16; 5:1; Philippians 3:9 – things like purgatory, exalting Mary too much, praying to Mary, the treasury of merit, icons, statues, praying to them and kissing them (objects of wood and stone), visiting graves and praying to the dead; transubstantiation, bowing down to bread and wine, ex opere operato priestly powers (magic by Latin formulas), Papal doctrines, indulgences, etc.
You and I have been through all those. Or at least, I explained them to you in other places. Suffice to give these references:
The Church which is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).
The doctrines of the Catholic Church which are distinctive from other churches:
Purgatory (1 Cor 3:15).
Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27).
Communion of Saints (Rom 12:12-20).
The Mass and the necessity to attend (Heb 10:25-31).
The Sacrament of Confession (Heb 13:17).
The Sacrament of Holy Orders (1 Tim 4:14).
The Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5).
Justification and salvation by faith and works (Rom 2:1-13).
KENJANUARY 27, 2015 AT 6:35 AM
I fully believe Matthew 28:18-20 and have actually obeyed it by going to a Muslim country and evangelizing and learning another language and talking to Muslims about Christ as Lord, God in the flesh, eternal Son, crucified, dead, buried, risen from the dead, ascended to the right hand of the Father, praying for us now; and will come again to judge. I obey the Great commission. Roman Churches give a bad witness to Muslims by their statues of Mary and praying to her; giving Muslims the impression that Mary is a goddess and the statues look like idolatry. praying to statues looks like idolatry to Muslims. The author of the Qur’an thought the Trinity was “The Father, The Mother, and the Son” – see Surah 5:116; 5:72-78; 6:101.
You ought to become a Muslim with all your fearfulness. They also destroy statues and keep to the words of one book.
We have been made free by Christ and now live upon Mt. Sion with the Saints. You don’t obey Christ, you obey self. You lean upon your own understanding, having set aside the Word of God which says:
Hebrews 13:7King James Version (KJV)
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
The exalting of Mary and false doctrines about her – Immaculate conception and sinlessness and statues and prayers to her are a violation of Matthew 28:18-20 because it is not “teaching them” the truth. It is teaching false doctrine and false practice.
On the contrary, we don’t have any false teachings about Mary. We honor Mary less than she deserves. Only God has honored her accordingly. Because only He can do the wonderful things which He has done for her:
You abide in a religion which is beset by anxieties and fear. You don’t understand the freedom of the Gospel. You don’t understand that we live in a New Dispensation of Jesus Christ who has set us free to live amongst and with the Saints.
KENJANUARY 27, 2015 AT 7:18 AM
Roman Catholicism also contradicts Acts 13:38-39.
No, Ken. The Catholic Church wrote the entire New Testament and the New Testament is written upon the basis of the Traditions of the Catholic Church. It is because you have set aside those Traditions which circumscribe the meaning of the New Testament that you twist and turn the meaning of the Word of God to your own destruction.
Until you step into the New Dispensation, it will always be so.
The Catholic Church did not write the NT. The apostles and their associates wrote the NT books/letters. Matthew, John, Peter – eyewitnesses, of the 12 disciples, apostles, Paul the apostle. Then Mark (for Peter), Luke (associate of Paul), Barnabas (called an apostle in Acts 14:4 and 14:14 – probably wrote Hebrews (a Levite – Acts 4:36, ‘son of encouragement” – “bear with this letter of encouragement” – Hebrews 13:22, etc. ) James and Jude – half-brothers of Jesus. 9 human writers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
KENJANUARY 27, 2015 AT 4:25 PM
The Catholic Church did not write the NT. ….James and Jude – half-brothers of Jesus. 9 human writers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
They were all Catholic, Ken. And James and Jude were Jesus’ cousins. Let me show you.
According to some, Scripture attests that Jesus had brothers, sons of Mary. They base their opinion on this verse:
Matthew 13
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
However, these brothers and sisters in Christ, fail to realize that the word “brother” has meant much more than “brothers of the womb” from time immemorial. Good friends call themselves “brothers” even today. And a closer examination of Scripture proves that James, Joseph, Simon and Jude are sons of another Mary, not Jesus’ mother, but Jesus’ aunt.
First, we see that Jesus’ mother has a “sister”. From Catholic Tradition, we know that Jesus’ mother is an only child. So, her sister is really a cousin or other close kin:
John 19 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
We also note that this Mary is always mentioned with Mary Magdalen. The two must have been close friends:
Mark 16 1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus.
Note that in this verse she is not called Mary of Cleophas, but Mary the mother of James.
Mark 15 40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome:
Here she is the mother of James and Joseph and Salome. The mention of Salome explains the “sisters” of Jesus. Since Mary the sister of Mary His Mother is also His sister or kin.
Matthew 27 56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Luke 24 10 And it was Mary Magdalen, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the other women that were with them, who told these things to the apostles.
Sometimes she is called “the other” Mary.
Matthew 27 61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulcher.
cont’d
cont’d
OK, so far we’ve established that James and Joseph are the sons of the other Mary. Not of Jesus’ mother. What about Simon and Jude?
Luke 6 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.
Well, Jude is the brother of James. He says so himself:
Jude 1 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.
And, although Simon the Zealot is rarely mentioned, when he is mentioned, he is always grouped with either James or Jude.
Luke 6 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes,
Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.
If we review the listing of Apostles, we will see that the Apostle mentioned as Thaddeus must be Jude and Simon the Zelotes must be Simon the Cananean:
Mark 3 16 And to Simon he gave the name Peter: 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew and Matthew, and Thomas and James of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Cananean:19 And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Matthew 10 2 And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, 3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, 4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.
Luke 6 13 And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles). 14 Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes, 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.
So, we see that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon are related to Jesus. But they are not the sons of Mary, but her distant kin and thus also Jesus’ kin.
Ken,
Show me your methodology for understanding Scripture, from Scripture. I want to see it.
A whole course in hermeneutics is too much for the com boxes here. “Hermeneutics” – how to interpret Scripture properly. Searching for the author’s intended meaning.
Luke 24:44-45 – Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Even after we read, study, know Greek and Hebrew, study the historical background, context, grammar, literary genre, pray, meditate, be humble, – it still takes the Spirit of God to open the heart and mind to really understand the Scriptures. Jesus had to open the disciples minds for them to understand.
Here’s the Catholic Teaching.
III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”81).
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
Perhaps yours doesn’t fit in the combos because it isn’t in Scripture. If it were in Scripture, all you would have to do is point to it.
But since it isn’t, you have admitted that your methodology is unbiblical.
..”No such thing as a “Magisterium”.”
Ken,
Did you read the canons posted above… from the Council of Nicaea??
If you can’t find a Magisterium operating and producing every one of those very ‘canons’, then you certainly don’t know what a ‘Magisterium’ is. The Magisterium, for one thing, regulates and enforces ecclesiastical law in the Church. For example, canon 6 reads:
“If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”
AND…
“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood…”.
So it’s very simple, this above is what ‘Magisterium’s’ do. They govern and lead the Church.
On another note, you might also notice the reference and attention paid to “the ancient customs” in these canons. I think these Bishops of Nicaea would have laughed if anyone even brought up the idea of a doctrine such as “Sola Scriptura”! It would have been entertainment for these council fathers, because it would mean that they would have to abandon the council immediately because the council wouldn’t make any sense under the ‘sola scriptura’.
Canon 6 makes it clear that the bishop of Alexandria and bishop of Antioch had jurisdictional authority in their own areas, as did the bishop of Jerusalem (Canon 7). There was no understanding of the bishop of Rome being over them in authority. Cyprian and 86 other bishops understood this also around 257-258 AD, in their rebuke of Stephen, bishop of Rome, who tried to claim he was “bishop over all other bishops”. No such thing as Papacy in early centuries.
As they do to this day. St. Cyprian is another heretic whose teaching was not accepted. Although he was martyred for the faith and thus, is a St. But the Catholic Church did not abide by many of his teachings and the council where that teaching is found, is a robber council which was not accepted by the Church, but only by heretics, like, well, yourself.
All that is besides the point, because you are a mere man who has identified possibilities. But you are not infallible.
true; I am a mere man; and I am not infallible; very true.
Yet the Catholic Church is declared the Teacher of the Wisdom of God in Scripture.
Nowhere is the Roman Catholic Church such a thing. It teaches heresy and is a false church. It left its first love, Jesus, by adding Mary into worship and devotion, along with the other saints and prayers to them with icons and statues. It left true doctrine by adding purgatory, works, rituals, indulgences, rituals, relics; etc. to grace alone and justification by faith alone. (Galatians 2:16; Acts 13:38-39; Romans 1:17; 3:28; 4:1-16; 5:1; Phil. 3:9; Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:15-16; 5:24; 20:30-31)
And is declared the pillar and bulwark of Truth, in Scripture. 1 Timothy 3:16 is not about the Roman Catholic Church.
And Scripture admonishes us to learn from our rulers in the Faith.
teachers and leaders, pastors, elders, yes; but if they stray into heresy, they are no longer true teachers. Adding Mary to worship and Papal doctrines, transubstantiation, purgatory – all heresies, additions to the Scriptures that distort the Scriptures; traditions of men – Mark 7:1-23
And you’re not my ruler. You deny the right of any man to be a ruler in the faith.
I never claimed that anyway. “ruler” is a high term. Jesus is the “ruler”, the King, the Lord.
So, why are you here trying to tell me to understand the Word of God in an unbiblical manner? That’s what I want to know.
Freedom of speech to evangelize and debate doctrine in a com box; that is all.
It is the Catholic Church which is described in Scripture, Ken. Whether you like it or not. Your group doesn’t come around til well after the, what, 19th century. You don’t worship like Calvin or Luther. You do realize that don’t you?
And the Protestant gatherings keep morphing, within generations.
But the Catholic Church is described in Scripture.
First, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church:
John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
I see only a few Churches with such a Pastor. Further, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:
Matthew 16:17-19 (King James Version)
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The list of Churches accept this teaching gets smaller. Certainly, all Protestant denominations can now be eliminated.
Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible:
Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
The list remains the same, but now I can certainly eliminate all Protestant denominations.
Back to Matt 16:18, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church. History shows that all the Churches sprang from the Church which is frequently described as the Mother Church. The Catholic Church.
By simple logic of elimination, that leaves only the Catholic Church. Further, the Catholic Church can produce records tracing back to Apostolic times.
Therefore, I conclude that it is the Catholic Church which is described in Scripture.
But we can continue to find Catholic indicators throughout the Bible:
The Church which is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).
The doctrines of the Catholic Church which are distinctive from other churches:
Purgatory (1 Cor 3:15).
Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27).
Communion of Saints (Rom 12:12-20).
The Mass and the necessity to attend (Heb 10:25-31).
The Sacrament of Confession (Heb 13:17).
The Sacrament of Holy Orders (1 Tim 4:14).
The Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5).
Justification and salvation by faith and works (Rom 2:1-13).
See also, Christ established the Catholic Church
KENJANUARY 27, 2015 AT 7:14 AM
“Canon 6 makes it clear that the bishop of Alexandria and bishop of Antioch had jurisdictional authority in their own areas, as did the bishop of Jerusalem (Canon 7)”
Does that mean you accept the canons of Nicaea as ‘authoritative’ in any way? Or was this Council part of the great heresy of the Catholic Church that your refer to above, i.e…
“It teaches heresy and is a false church. It left its first love, Jesus, by adding Mary into worship and devotion, along with the other saints and prayers to them with icons and statues.”
Was this early Church Council a perfect example of your notion of a “false church”, as you claim above?.
I’m just trying to find out when you think this false Church actually started, and apostatized from the “true Church”…if you think there was,or is, one? What decade? And which particular Bishops were the apostates. And especially does Nicaea have any credibility at all? There is a lot of history written about the early Church, so you should be able to cite a time and place where it all began…the great apostasy, that is?
By the way, I never read of this beginning of the Church to teach ‘heresy’, or the beginning of the Church to be ‘false’ in the earliest extant History of the Church written by Eusebius of Caesarea in about 325 AD. Then again, do you think that he is just another of the early heretics, and false teachers that made up the early Catholic Church?
To put it simply, is this early history written by Eusebius a heretical and false teaching promoted and promulgated by the heretical and ‘false church’ that you refer to above?
KENJANUARY 27, 2015 AT 7:49 AM
true; I am a mere man; and I am not infallible; very true.
Thank you. I would rather believe the infallible Catholic Church.
Nowhere is the Roman Catholic Church such a thing. It teaches heresy and is a false church….
I say it is the True Church of Jesus Christ and that you teach heresy. Now what?
I believe that Jesus Christ is infallible.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church and guides her infallibly.
You claim to believe that Jesus Christ is the Head of your church. But, you don’t believe your church is infallible. Therefore, you don’t believe that Jesus Christ is infallible, do you? Otherwise, He would be able to guide your church infallibly. But according to you, He can’t. What sort of “Head” is that? A fallible head. That’s what sort.
1 Timothy 3:16 is not about the Roman Catholic Church.
I say it is. Now what? Are you going to argue with me like I were a Protestant? As though I would negotiate the Word of God for the word of Ken?
And Scripture admonishes us to learn from our rulers in the Faith.
teachers and leaders, pastors, elders, yes; but if they stray into heresy, they are no longer true teachers. Adding Mary to worship and Papal doctrines, transubstantiation, purgatory – all heresies, additions to the Scriptures that distort the Scriptures; traditions of men – Mark 7:1-23
You are the heretic, Ken. The Teachings of the Church are the Teachings of Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church who speaks through Her.
I never claimed that anyway. “ruler” is a high term. Jesus is the “ruler”, the King, the Lord.
If you truly believed Jesus were the ruler of the Church, you would believe the Church was infallible. But you don’t. You just say things without understanding what you say in order to justify yourself and the traditions of men which you prefer to the Word of God, which Christ speaks through His Church. And guess what? He still speaks infallibly.
Freedom of speech to evangelize and debate doctrine in a com box; that is all.
Go right ahead. And I’ll keep pointing out that you are putting yourself over Scripture. You are changing the Word of God which Christ Teaches through His Church. The very same Church which wrote the New Testament.
We have Christ, Ken. We follow Christ.
I’m just trying to find out when you think this false Church actually started, and apostatized from the “true Church”…if you think there was,or is, one?
The Roman Catholic Church did not fully apostatize until the Council of Trent (1545-1563), when it dogmatically condemned the Biblical teaching of justification by faith alone.
Early corruptions and false doctrines such as baptismal regeneration did not make the early church totally false. The mono-episcopacy was a mistake, but a practical / pragmatic one. The over-exalting of Mary did not really take place until after the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. A Roman Catholic writer, Luigi Gambero, even admits that. (cited on page 43-44 of “Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate”, Dwight Longnecker and David Gustafson; Brazos Press, 2003.)
Eusebius has a lot of good historical material. Some stuff, we don’t know for sure, for some things he says don’t have citations of earlier documentary evidence. Some things we have to take on faith. For example the tradition that Peter and Paul were both executed by Nero around 67 AD, Peter by being crucified upside down and Paul by beheading – are traditions that are embedded within Gnostic like and fanciful other details.
But, according to what I have read, most scholars accept those facts as a historical core and that those traditions got embellished later.
I don’t hold to a view that says there is a definite line of where to tell where the early church “went off the rails”. We have to accept the historical realities of mixtures of good things and wrong speculations that got over-developed later.
But most of the really bad doctrines took off after the Council of Chalcedon (451) and it seems Purgatory was developed a lot by Gregory 1, bishop of Rome from 600s onward.
Wycliff (1300s), Huss (1400s), Luther and Calvin and Zwingli (1500s)noticed the problems when the looked deeply at the Scriptures.
But the Roman Catholic Church did not completely “go off the rails” until the Council of Trent.
When did Luther and Calvin go wrong? Luther taught that Mary is the Mother of God and Calvin taught that she had only one child, Jesus.
I think, I can state with confidence, that you don’t believe that Jesus is the Head of the Church, do you?
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
DeMaria wrote:
The Church which is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).
There is nothing about infallibility there in those passages. Studying the historical background of the book of Ephesians and 1 Timothy is important and, ahem . . . what happened to the church in Ephesus?
Revelation 2:1-7 – they left there first love and eventually the lamp stand was taken away.
The local church is visible and suppossed to be “one” (unified in doctrine and practice) and each local church is to preach the truth – the pillar and bulwark of the truth – if they preach it and live it. What happens when they don’t?
That is what happened in history. All those eastern churches were pretty much destroyed by Islam. There are very small bodies of EO churches and RC in Islamic lands. The Coptic church survived because it held to the Deity of Christ and the Trinity strongly, but even the EO and RC consider them heretics, as they are Mia-physites / Mono-physites.
The visible unity of a church is only seen in witness locally as it reaches out in evangelism and proper teaching and loving testimony of life. That is what Jesus meant in John 17 and Paul in Ephesians 4. It does not mean some kind of uniformity by all coming under the Pope in Rome, which is not even in the Bible at all nor in the early centuries of church history.
KENJANUARY 28, 2015 AT 10:03 AM
DeMaria wrote:
The Church which is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).
There is nothing about infallibility there in those passages….
Well, Ken, I say there is. I say that is precisely what the passages mean.
Now, what? Are you going to invoke your right to private interpretation? And are you going to claim your right trumps mine? Are you going to claim infallibility?
In fact, you don’t. So, why should I listen to you?
Here’s what I see in you, Ken. A man who, in fully contradictory Protestant fashion, denies the right of the Pope to Teach His flock and then tries to do the same thing he denies the true Pope.
I follow Christ through the Church, Ken. Not you. And you’re wrong.
This is what Scripture say, Ken:
Ephesians 3:10King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
The Wisdom of God is infallible, by definition.
Therefore, the Church that teaches the Wisdom of God is infallible, by definition.
Neither your church nor you are infallible, therefore neither your church or you teach the Wisdom of God.
I follow the Church through which Jesus Christ speaks and comes alive, everyday. The Catholic Church.
Ken said:
There is nothing about infallibility there in those passages.
I’m telling you there is. And I’m guided by the Holy Spirit. Now what? Are you the Pope?
You’re a Protestant. You are the head of your own congregation.
I believe that Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church and that He speaks through His Church. Why would I listen to anything you have to say when I have Christ?
No; there is nothing in those Scripture passages about infallibility.
You hope and think you are guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit doesn’t contradict Scripture, so, you cannot be guided by Him. (since you hold dogmatically to those Roman Catholic doctrines that Protestants have shown to be wrong.)
I am not the head of my own congregation.
I realize that we have mutually exclusive claims.
Ken,
Just to make sure that I understand your position, are you saying that true believers are led by the Holy Spirit, and therefore get 100% of doctrines right? And that if a person is wrong on any issue (holding to a position that contradicts Scripture, rightly understood), that he therefore isn’t led by the Spirit?
I.X.,
Joe
KENJANUARY 29, 2015 AT 2:39 PM
No; there is nothing in those Scripture passages about infallibility.
I say there is.
You hope and think you are guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit doesn’t contradict Scripture, so, you cannot be guided by Him.
I’m not contradicting Scripture. I’m contradicting YOU.
(since you hold dogmatically to those Roman Catholic doctrines that Protestants have shown to be wrong.)
The Catholic Church has proven Protestants to be wrong.
I am not the head of my own congregation.
It isn’t Christ, either. Because Christ is infallible. Therefore, the Church of which He is head must also be infallible.
I realize that we have mutually exclusive claims.
That’s good. Recognizing a problem is half the battle.
Here’s the other part of the problem which apparently, you don’t recognize.
1st. You grant yourself the right to understand Scripture anyway you want.
2nd. You claim this is everybody’s right.
3rd. Because your tradition teaches that Scripture is perspicuous.
4th. When we interpret the Scripture differently, you claim to know better than we.
5th. So, either you don’t believe Scripture is perspicuous.
6th. Or you don’t believe that we have the right to interpret Scripture.
7th. Or you think you have authority over us.
Do you see the problem? If you really believed what you claim to believe, you’d say, “Oh, ok. If that’s how you see it. You have every right to believe it.”
and, “Right! Everybody understands Scripture. Its perspicuous. You can’t be wrong, ever.”
and “oh, right, I have no authority to tell you what to believe, you submit to Christ through your Pope.”
But that’s not how you act. You act as though your word carries weight. Compared to Christ and the Church, it doesn’t.
Just to make sure that I understand your position, are you saying that true believers are led by the Holy Spirit, and therefore get 100% of doctrines right?
No; I don’t think anyone can get everything 100% right; no human being is infallible. I appreciate the way you framed the question. I was mostly reacting to DeMaria’s very dogmatic style that is similar to Pope Boniface VIII’s style (1302 Unam Sanctum) and Pius IX’s style ( ” I am the tradition!”), etc.
And that if a person is wrong on any issue (holding to a position that contradicts Scripture, rightly understood), that he therefore isn’t led by the Spirit?
No; that is not what I am saying either. Again, I guess I am just reacting to DeMaria’s dogmatic style that seems to be “I am right and I am led by the Spirit because I follow Christ and Christ’s Church, the Roman Catholic Church under the Pope”, etc.
If I said that, I was in error. I don’t say, I’m right. I say, the Catholic Church is right.
The difference between you and I and every other Catholic, is that our intent is to explain Scripture according to Catholic Teaching. If our explanations are ever proven not to be in conformity with Catholic Teaching, we will immediately repent of our error and change our explanation to be in conformity with Catholic Teaching.
Whereas, for you, it is a personal affront to your pride when we disagree with you. Essentially, you and every other Protestant has crowned yourself pope. All of you claim that God speaks through you and yet your voices make up a cacophony of contradicting messages throughout the world.
DeMaria,
There is a difference between the freedom and right to hold a position, vs. whether that position is right.
You have every right to believe what you believe. I think one of the great mistakes of history was the complete unity and marriage of church and state, from Theodosius (380-392 AD) to Justinian (500s) to the modern era of separation of church and state.
I sincerely believe that I have the right interpretation, but I don’t claim to be infallible or have authority over you at all.
KENJANUARY 30, 2015 AT 8:39 AM
DeMaria,
There is a difference between the freedom and right to hold a position, vs. whether that position is right.
Agreed.
You have every right to believe what you believe.
Agreed.
I think one of the great mistakes of history was the complete unity and marriage of church and state, from Theodosius (380-392 AD) to Justinian (500s) to the modern era of separation of church and state.
So, you don’t think God should be involved in politics?
I sincerely believe that I have the right interpretation,
And I believe the Catholic Church has the right interpretation.
but I don’t claim to be infallible or have authority over you at all.
Then it makes no sense for you to be trying to tell me anything.
I believe that Jesus Christ, the Head of the Catholic Church, is infallible and has authority over all, including you. And I believe He exercises His authority through the Catholic Church. And I believe that in rejecting the Catholic Church, you are rejecting Jesus Christ.
Scripture is perspicuous on many things, but not equally on all things. There are lots of issues that are not as clear. I am not bothered so much by different Protestant denominations (non-liberal ones), because the differences are over minor issues, compared to the main issues. If they are liberal, that is different. Then they are heretical. (if they deny inerrancy or the Deity of Christ or Trinity or that homosexuality is sin, etc.)
KENJANUARY 30, 2015 AT 8:42 AM
Scripture is perspicuous on many things, but not equally on all things.
Who made you the authority over God and His word to decide what is perspicuous to whom?
What if one passage is clear as a bell to one and that same passage is murky as mud to another?
There are lots of issues that are not as clear. I am not bothered so much by different Protestant denominations (non-liberal ones), because the differences are over minor issues, compared to the main issues. If they are liberal, that is different. Then they are heretical. (if they deny inerrancy or the Deity of Christ or Trinity or that homosexuality is sin, etc.)
Who are you to be bothered by anything? You appropriate for yourself the right of private interpretation. Do you deny it to everyone else?
I follow Christ, through His Church. One Church, one Body. You follow yourself and anyone who tickles your ears.
DeMaria wrote:
You grant yourself the right to understand Scripture anyway you want.
No, not true. No conservative Evangelical Protestant believes that. We say we have the right to interpret Scripture, but we also have the responsibility to interpret it properly and correctly, according to the proper science of hermeneutics – according to the author’s intended meaning and context, etc. not “any way we want”, no.
KENJANUARY 30, 2015 AT 8:45 AM
DeMaria wrote:
You grant yourself the right to understand Scripture anyway you want.
No, not true. No conservative Evangelical Protestant believes that. We say we have the right to interpret Scripture, but we also have the responsibility to interpret it properly and correctly, according to the proper science of hermeneutics – according to the author’s intended meaning and context, etc. not “any way we want”, no.
Its an illusion from Satan. You interpret the Scripture the way you want. You have no hermeneutic except what you feel is proper to use at the time. It might change tomorrow. You’ll find some fellow who tickles your ears and you’ll say, “Oh, why didn’t I think of that?” And there you go down another rabbit trail. Just where Satan wants you. Listening to anyone but God, through His Church.
DeMaria,
Not true. The rules of hermeneutics, grammar, context, according to literature, the rule of faith (no contradictions in God’s mind) have been there from the beginning. Even Augustine articulated them. Except for the extra methods of the allegorical method from Origen, which was wrong.
The rules according to context and grammar and historical background, etc. have always been true.
Jesus said to the Pharisees, “have you not read what God said to you?” matthew 22:29-31
Jesus holds people accountable to God when they read the text.
But the Spirit of God has to open the mind and heart to accept it as true – Luke 24:45
2 Cor. 2:14-16
Acts 16:14
KENJANUARY 30, 2015 AT 3:28 PM
DeMaria,
Not true. The rules of hermeneutics, grammar, context, according to literature, the rule of faith (no contradictions in God’s mind) have been there from the beginning. Even Augustine articulated them. Except for the extra methods of the allegorical method from Origen, which was wrong.
Lol! Scripture, Ken, Scripture. Or do you follow unbiblical rules in order to understand the Bible?
The rules according to context and grammar and historical background, etc. have always been true.
Then they must be in Scripture. Or are you relying upon the Magisterium of the Catholic Church or some other magisterium?
Jesus said to the Pharisees, “have you not read what God said to you?” matthew 22:29-31
We believe the Scripture is God’s word. So is Tradition.
Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
So says the Bible.
Jesus holds people accountable to God when they read the text.
Jesus holds people accountable to God when they speak falsely (Matt 12:16) and every good or evil work they perform (Matt 25:31-46). Jesus holds men accountable for disobeying the Church (Matt 18:17).
But the Spirit of God has to open the mind and heart to accept it as true – Luke 24:45
2 Cor. 2:14-16
Acts 16:14
No argument there.
Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
I think torturing and executing heretics was wrong; and Justinian and Hericlius’ policies against the Copts, and other Miaphysites/monophysites and Nestorians was wrong and contributed to those churches being more welcoming to the Arab Muslims when they invaded their areas. (Even though they are wrong by rejecting Ephesus and Chalcedon, they should have not been treated so harshly and dogmatically.)
KENJANUARY 30, 2015 AT 8:52 AM
I think torturing and executing heretics was wrong; and Justinian and Hericlius’ policies against the Copts, and other Miaphysites/monophysites and Nestorians was wrong and contributed to those churches being more welcoming to the Arab Muslims when they invaded their areas. (Even though they are wrong by rejecting Ephesus and Chalcedon, they should have not been treated so harshly and dogmatically.)
Yep. God’s people have made many mistakes. Many have done things completely against the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
But the Catholic Church remains stalwart and infallible, because She is guided by Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.
So, do you admit the Roman Catholic was wrong on many aspects of the Crusades? (killing Jews and killing the eastern Orthodox in Constantinople)
and
the Spanish Inquistion tortures?
Individual Catholics. Not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is led by Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, if the Crusades had not happened, you would be praying to Allah 5 times a day right now. And the inquisitions were instituted by certain governments because, Muslims and Jews, who, incredibly, were allies at the time, and were infiltrating their countries and wreaking havoc. Much like Muslims are doing today.
I know that Protestants like to turn everything against the Catholic Church. But that’s because they don’t have faith in Christ, who is the head of and speaks through, the Catholic Church.
Baptists are stupid, or evil, or both. Any idiot can see that Acts 2:38 says baptism is essential to salvation. I was raised in the church of Christ where baptism is very much seen as essential to salvation and for the remission of sins (in the sense that you ain’t got remission of sins until you get baptized). But unlike Catholics we also believe in immersion only and baptism for believers only, like the Baptists, because that’s scriptural. Also, we don’t do nudy baptisms like you have depicted there. You don’t have to strip to your undies to get baptized. Churches usually have some white robes for you to be baptized in. But I’ve also seen many baptisms where people just wore some regular clothes and had a change of clothes to change into afterwards.
Not to mention that Baptists claim to believe the Nicene Creed which states as one of its planks “I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins.” Yet there’s nothing they attack more than that very thing. They’ll recite the creed, but if you ask them point blank about baptism being for the remission of sins they will tell you that it is not. Such dishonesty.
Any faith that agrees with the Council of Nicaea, but does not agree with celibate bishops, ecclesiastical law, the true presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, specific territories in the form of dioceses for Bishops, amongst other canonical laws….are dishonest. All of these issues are raised in the ecclesiastical ‘canons’ of the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea.
The early church had great order imbued in it. The Nicaean Council was called to make it even more orderly. And due to this great order and organization the whole of Europe was converted to Christianity after the fall of the Roman Empire. And in due time, this same order, found in the Catholic Church and Faith, was the foundation from which our modern western world was built. Just the way it all happened, thanks be to God and His Holy Catholic Church!
Well my church rejects all creeds as manmade as a matter of principle regardless their content, and requires only the creed taken directly from Acts 8:37 at baptism. But what do you mean about celibate priesthood and Nicea? I don’t think Nicea actually said that. If so, how come the Greek Orthodox don’t follow it?
“The early church had great order imbued in it. The Nicaean Council was called to make it even more orderly.”
No, it just subjected it to the whimbs of the Empreror and made it just an appendage of Rome. Actually that which merged with Rome there was not the church at all, but a splinter group, since the Donatists were the true church, and they survived in the form of the anabaptists for many centuries, all the way to the Reformation, where they opposed both Catholicism and Lutheranism/Calvinism by teaching against infant baptism which all those groups accepted and by their continued rejection of the false doctrine of “original sin” which Augustine invented.
the Donatists were the true church, and they survived in the form of the anabaptists for many centuries, all the way to the Reformation
Could you please explain this a little more?
David Brainerd asks,
I don’t think Nicea actually said that.
Canon 3 of the Council of Nicea says:
This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.
If so, how come the Greek Orthodox don’t follow it?
For the answer to that question, you’ll have to ask the Greek Orthodox. We’re Catholic.
DAVID BRAINERD FEBRUARY 1, 2015 AT 9:06 PM
…. since the Donatists were the true church, and they survived in the form of the anabaptists for many centuries,
On the contrary, Donatists believed everything that the Catholic Church teaches, they even held all the Sacraments. But they did not believe that the Baptism of heretics was valid.
and they survived in the form of the anabaptists for many centuries,
There is no evidence of anabaptists until after the Reformation. They are Protestants.
RESTLESS PILGRIMFEBRUARY 2, 2015 AT 1:50 PM
“the Donatists were the true church, and they survived in the form of the anabaptists for many centuries, all the way to the Reformation”
I guess the Baptists can be really proud of their Donatist history, and especially their close connection with one of the greatest enemies and persecutors of the Nicaea era Church, the Emperor Julian the Apostate. Here is a brief history of the relationship:
THE RESTORATION OF DONATISM BY JULIAN
The peace was happy for Africa, and the forcible means by which it was obtained were justified by the violence of the sectaries. But the accession of Julian the Apostate in 361 changed the face of affairs. Delighted to throw Christianity into confusion, Julian allowed the Catholic bishops who had been exiled by Constantius to return to the sees which the Arians were occupying. The Donatists, who had been banished by Constans, were similarly allowed to return at their own petition, and received back their basilicas. Scenes of violence were the result of this policy both in the East and the West. “Your fury”, wrote St. Optatus, “returned to Africa at the same moment that the devil was set free”, for the same emperor restored supremacy to paganism and the Donatists to Africa. The decree of Julian was considered so discreditable to them, that the Emperor Honorius in 405 had it posted up throughout Africa for their shame. St. Optatus gives a vehement catalogue of the excesses committed by the Donatists on their return. They invaded the basilicas with arms; they committed so many murders that a report of them was sent to the emperor. Under the orders of two bishops, a party attacked the basilica of Lemellef; they stripped off the roof, pelted with tiles the deacons who were round the altar, and killed two of them. In Maruetania riots signalized the return of the Donatists. In Numidia two bishops availed themselves of the complaisance of the magistrates to throw a peaceful population into confusion, expelling the faithful, wounding the men, and not sparing the women and children.”
“Well my church rejects all creeds as manmade as a matter of principle regardless their content, and requires only the creed taken directly from Acts 8:37 at baptism.”
It’s OK, at least you’re not being a hypocrite by saying you accept the Council of Nicaea, but not the people, or institutions, who composed it. I think a reading of “Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius” sums up the history before the Council fairly well. Anyone who reads it can understand how the early Church developed from the time of the Apostles to the Council. They can also understand how the New Testament canon developed, which gave all Christians the Bible as we know it.
Donatism, and everything relating to it, is quite complex, but was dealt with by Saint Augustine and St. Optatus.
In all of the early heresies such as Arianism, Docetism, Pelagianism, Donatism, Monetarism, etc…we see profound controversy in the Church. But such controversy is also found in the early Church involving the Apostles, and St. Paul, at the Council of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles, 15:1-35. Other Synods and Councils have always been held in succeeding generations of the Church to resolve similar types of doctrinal problems.
So we find in studying early Church History that the primitive Church even in the midst of many conflicts, and controversies, was highly organized. Even the many heretical sects were usually founded by ordained Bishops. On the contrary, the disorder found in the multitudes of modern Protestant sects today cannot compare in any way to such order and organization in the primitive Church. And it was from this very same primitive Church that Eusebius writes that the text of the New Testament as we have it today was promulgated and published.
All interested should Google “Eusebius’ Church History” (325 AD) for more detailed information on the history of the early Catholic Church prior to the Council of Nicaea, and on the History of the development of the New Testament canon.
Excellent exposition of Acts 2:38
http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/acts-2:38
Interesting article, excellent exposition, but wrong conclusions. The best model for what happens at our own baptism is that of the baptism of Jesus Himself. At His baptism was witnessed a profound sign signifying the gift of the Holy Spirit at Baptism :
Luke 3:22 : “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”
John 1:32 : “And John gave testimony, saying: I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven, and he remained upon him.”
Preaching by the Church first. Faith in that teaching, and love of Christ, second. And Baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit third. This is why new Christians are called Catechumens. They are first taught the Faith, and then they enter the Church through the Sacraments – first by Baptism and then by receiving the Eucharist.
That’s normally how it has been done since the earliest centuries of the Church. Again, Eusebius writes of this in his ‘history’ referred to above.
Just a sample from Eusebius’ History relating stories about Origin and various students of his who were martyred during his time:
“2. After Plutarch, the second martyr among the pupils of Origen was Serenus, who gave through fire a proof of the faith which he had received.
3. The third martyr from the same school was Heraclides, and after him the fourth was Hero. The former of these was as yet a catechumen, and the latter had but recently been baptized. Both of them were beheaded. After them, the fifth from the same school proclaimed as an athlete of piety was another Serenus, who, it is reported, was beheaded, after a long endurance of tortures. And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, as Origen himself somewhere says.”
This also relates in the account above regarding Herias and Heraclides, something about the Catholic doctrine concerning the ‘Baptism of Desire’.
From the current Catholic Catechism it is taught as such:
Hence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church observes, “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament” (CCC 1259).
Baptism is not necessary for salvation. If that were the case the Thief on the cross would have had to come down from the cross after trusting in Christ and be baptised before he died. It’s not one rule for the Thief and another for us. God is just.
K. Buchan,
1) By your own reasoning, wouldn’t you have to say that faith is not necessary for salvation, because infants can be saved without being old enough to have faith?
2) What about all of the numerous Bible verses that talk about the necessity of faith for salvation? You seem to just ignore every one of the verses above, because of a single instance – the Good Thief.
It seems to me that between the two views offered here, the Catholic one makes more sense. We have long recognized so-called “Baptism of desire” as salvific. But trying to build baptismal doctrines off of extreme cases like the Good Thief is a bad idea, when Scripture directly addresses baptism several times, and teaches something quite different from what you’re suggesting.
K BUCHANFEBRUARY 13, 2015 AT 5:50 PM
Baptism is not necessary for salvation. If that were the case the Thief on the cross would have had to come down from the cross after trusting in Christ and be baptised before he died.
The short answer is that you’re making an assumption. Jesus and the Apostles were baptizing throughout Israel. Scripture does not say that the Thief was baptized. But Scripture does not deny that the Thief was baptized. Scripture is simply silent on the matter.
It’s not one rule for the Thief and another for us. God is just.
Even if the Thief was not baptized, the Catholic Church does not deem baptism absolutely necessary.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. 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. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
That means that Baptism is the ordinary means that we know by which a man may be joined to the Church (i.e. the body of Christ) and thus saved.
However, there are other means by which God accomplishes the same thing.
1. Baptism of desire.
2. Baptism of blood.
3. Private revelation.
Infants do not have the understanding of Adults. So their lack of knowledge does not condemn them. God is just.
The Thief was not good. He was bad but he realised he was bad and needed a Savior. That’s why he reached out to Christ. The other Thief was bad too, and he rejected Christ.He condemned himself.
The ‘Good Thief’ is by no means an extreme example. Many people come to Christ in their dying moments or on their sick bed and they have no time to do good works.
K. Buchan,
But you just went from arguing that there are no special rules (“It’s not one rule for the Thief and another for us. God is just.”) to arguing that there *are* special rules (“Infants do not have the understanding of Adults. So their lack of knowledge does not condemn them. God is just.”).
Your second position is the correct one, as Luke 12:46-48 makes clear, God judges us based upon what we’ve been given. The Old Testament Jews didn’t have the same level of theological awareness as we do. Neither do infants. So what’s required of them is not going to be the same.
Christ orders us to be baptized, and a person who refuses to obey that cannot be saved. There’s no getting around the Scriptures on that. But that doesn’t mean that God is going to damn someone who is literally incapable of being baptized. As you say, God is just. And God’s justice takes these considerations into account, as Luke 12 shows us.
I.X.,
Joe
Salvation has always been through faith. There is no other way. Jesus himself said ‘no one comes to the father but by me’
The Old Testament looked forward to Christ, we look back to Christ since He has already come. But the Savior is the same. We know that Jesus said suffer the little children to come unto me. He recognises Infants are limited – like we do as Parents. Older people however have a mind that reasons and can make decisions like the 2 thiefs on the cross. One said Yes the other said No – that’s their free will and choice
I agree with you about all of that, but you’re still acknowledging that this seemingly-absolute rule doesn’t apply to infants, since that would be impossible and unjust.
And my point is that the same is true of Baptism. Scripture presents a seemingly-absolute rule, but it doesn’t apply in cases in which it’s impossible, since that would be unjust. That’s why there’s no contradiction between the clear Scriptural teaching (which you have ignored so far) and the case of the Good Thief.
I.X.,
Joe
Limbo is not scriptural – but yet Catholics believe in it for Infants so are Infants a special case from a Catholic doctrinal perspective?
K BUCHANFEBRUARY 13, 2015 AT 6:21 PM
Infants do not have the understanding of Adults. So their lack of knowledge does not condemn them. God is just.
Ok.
The Thief was not good. He was bad but he realised he was bad and needed a Savior. That’s why he reached out to Christ. The other Thief was bad too, and he rejected Christ.He condemned himself.
The ‘Good Thief’ is by no means an extreme example. Many people come to Christ in their dying moments or on their sick bed and they have no time to do good works.
But the Good Thief, St. Dismas, did many good works before he died. Didn’t you know? Let me enumerate them:
1. He suffered in the flesh. Scripture says:
1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
Crucifixion is considered one of the most painful ways to die that man has ever invented. And, as you can see, suffering in the flesh does away with sin. Christ must have known that the Good Thief had expiated his sins by the suffering that he endured on that cross.
2. He suffered with Jesus. Scripture says:
Romans 8:17King James Version (KJV)
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Who can deny that St. Dismas suffered with Christ? There he was suffering on the cross right next to Him. The only one any closer was Mary, His mother, who was spiritually suffering on the Cross with Jesus.
3. He admonished the sinner.
Do you remember that he reproved and rebuked the other criminal in defense of Jesus Christ? Scripture again says:
1 Thessalonians 5:14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
4. He gave good witness.
He openly confessed his faith in Jesus Christ, asking Him for salvation.
Matthew 10:32King James Version (KJV)
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
5. He converted the sinner.
His words have, through the centuries, converted many to faith in Christ. I count myself amongst them whom his words and example helped to convert. Do you know what happens to those who convert others to Christ?
James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
Hanging upon that cross beside Jesus, it is as though the Good Thief was standing before Jesus Christ at the Judgement. Jesus Christ judged the Good Thief according to his works which he had done in the body and knowing that he believed, He counted it to him as righteousness. Just as he does for all who, with the proper disposition of humility and faith, approach the Judgement Seat of Jesus Christ at the Sacraments.
K BUCHANFEBRUARY 13, 2015 AT 7:05 PM
Limbo is not scriptural – but yet Catholics believe in it for Infants so are Infants a special case from a Catholic doctrinal perspective?
1. Limbo was a speculative theology held by St. Augustine. It is not and has never been a Catholic Doctrine.
2. Yes. Infants are a special case. That is why we baptize our infants without expecting them to make a profession of faith.
I prefer to rely on the word of God not the Catechism. God has revealed truth to us through his word, not through the Catechism. Scripture makes it clear not to add or take away from the written word which is the word of God
K BUCHANFEBRUARY 13, 2015 AT 6:27 PM
I prefer to rely on the word of God not the Catechism.
The Catechism teaches the Word of God.
God has revealed truth to us through his word, not through the Catechism.
God has revealed His Word through His Church. Have you not read in Scripture?
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Scripture makes it clear not to add or take away from the written word which is the word of God
Scripture makes it clear that Jesus established a Church (Matt 16:18).
Scripture makes it clear that Jesus commanded this Church to Teach His commands (Matt 28:19-20).
Scripture makes it clear that we are to obey His Church or be treated as the heathen (Matt 18:17).
Scripture makes it clear that the Word of God is taught by the Church (Eph 3:10).
Scripture makes it clear that we are to learn the Word of God by word of mouth from our rulers in the Church (Heb 13:7).
Scripture makes it clear that our rulers in the Church make an account for our souls (Heb 13:17).
Scripture makes it clear that our rulers in the Church beseech us in place of God and pray for us in Christ’s stead (2 Cor 5:20).
There are many things in Scripture which you reject because you follow the tradition of your fathers. It is you who are adding to and subtracting from the Word of God.
The Church is made up of those who are part of the body of Christ. That body is made up of people who have recognised they are Sinners, that they need a Saviour and that they cannot in their own power save themselves, and hence accept what Christ has done for them on the cross. They have accepted that Christ died for them, because he loved them. The Church is not the Catholic Church. The Church is all people who confess Jesus as Lord
K BUCHANFEBRUARY 14, 2015 AT 1:36 AM
The Church is made up of those who are part of the body of Christ. That body is made up of people who have recognised they are Sinners, that they need a Saviour and that they cannot in their own power save themselves, and hence accept what Christ has done for them on the cross. They have accepted that Christ died for them, because he loved them. The Church is not the Catholic Church. The Church is all people who confess Jesus as Lord
It is both. Jesus Christ established a recognizable Church and gave her authority to bind and loose and to discipline those whom she admitted to the Body of Christ:
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
I guess you’ve never heard of “normative requirement” or any such phrase. Baptism IS absolutely essential for salvation, normally. But there are exceptions, like someone who intends to be baptized but dies on the way to the baptistry, and cases like the thief on the cross. This does not, however, excuse the outright rejection of baptism altogether by the Baptists and other Gnostic groups (Yes, Baptists are Gnostics, as all Calvinists are).
“Salvation has always been through faith.”
And anyone who has faith will be baptized because not only did Christ command it, but it is explicitely stated in scripture as being the place where we first receive the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and it is said that it saves us (1 Peter 3:21) and that we are made children of God by faith in Christ Jesus BECAUSE we are baptized (Gal 3:26-27). Anyone who rejects baptism, as you Baptist Gnostics do, proves themselve to only be pretending to have faith. But what if someone has faith and would get baptized if they could, but alas, they are presently nailed to a cross and aren’t going to come down alive? Well, that’s why baptism is essential to salvation but only as a NORMATIVE requirement. As with any requirement, God can wave it at his pleasure, but you should not go around acting like he’s going to do that for you just because you’re a lazy bum or a phycho hater of all Scripture outside of Romans 4. If you’re nailed to a cross and haven’t heard the gospel before, and finally you hear it on the cross, then sure, you can be saved without baptism like the thief on the cross. Otherwise, submit to Christ and cease your rebellion, you faithless heathen.
God’s requirement for salvation is simple to me
‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved’
God would not wave his own requirements. He does not flail like us. He is God and fair. All of us are held to account to the same standards that God requires. We all missed the mark. That’s why He gave us His Son to die for us
K BUCHANFEBRUARY 14, 2015 AT 2:01 AM
God’s requirement for salvation is simple to me
To you, is correct. But that’s because you set aside the rest of Scripture.
First, Scripture says, lean not on your own understanding.
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
But you do.
Second, Scripture says,
Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
But you don’t. You claim to learn your theology or gospel from Scripture alone.
But Scripture warns:
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
And, though you might not be unstable, you are certainly unlearned, since you don’t understand that the Word of God in Scripture is written based upon the Traditions of Jesus Christ which He passed down through the Church and which we must still keep.
As the Scripture also says:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved’
If you understood the Traditions of Jesus Christ, you would know that the context of these words is the Sacrament of Baptism. It is in Baptism that we confess our faith in Jesus Christ and our sins are washed from our soul (Acts 22:16). The very same chapter from which you quoted those words, says:
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Why did he do it, “straightway”? Because when they spoke to him the Word of the Lord, they instructed him the importance of being baptized, straightway.
God would not wave his own requirements. He does not flail like us. He is God and fair. All of us are held to account to the same standards that God requires. We all missed the mark. That’s why He gave us His Son to die for us
There’s more. Protestant doctrine stops short.
That’s why He gave us His Son to die for us, in order that the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit might be given to us in the Sacraments.
Is that not simple enough for you? Tell me, where did Jesus say that you had to understand everything He commanded? All I see is that you have to obey.
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Oh really?
St. Pope Siricius (4th Century): Letter to Himerius, 385: If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.”
St. Pope Siricius is simply clarifying that baptism should not be withheld from those who request it at the point of impending death.
What point are you trying to make?
How does someone get baptized in a middle of a shipwreck? I suppose there is a priest on the ship?
The doctrine is “baptism by desire.”
“For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament” (CCC 1259).
So, no, baptism is not required for salvation according to Catholic dogma.
As a Protestant, teachings such as these where faith alone can save some (i.e. thief on the cross), baptism can save others (infants dying soon after baptism), and god works save others (the baptized who fall into sin and by works receive absolution) appear to me inconsistent. Nonetheless, that is not the topic of the post here. The assertion of the author is that baptism is required for salvation. However, let it be known, that Catholic teaching has not, nor has it ever been, that literal water baptism is required for salvation. Baptism by blood and baptism by desire are sufficient for regeneration.
@Craig Truglia, Nearly all the Baptists are going to hell because they refuse baptism and hate it and despise it as something evil. Baptism by desire doesn’t help you when you spit on baptism and have no desire for it. And I think your mental disorder is obviously that you’ve never heard it said that baptism is the normative means of salvation. Do you know what normative means? The thief on the cross or any other instance of “baptism by desire” does not prove that people totally capable of being baptized get a free pass. Only when its impossible for you to be baptized is it no required. Its NORMATIVE and required of anyone who can do it. And you Baptists could not it; you just hate Christ and refuse to do it. You aren’t nailed to a cross!!!!! What’s preventing your from being baptized other than your hatred of Christ, of God, and of the Bible?
Craig,
But baptism of blood (martyrdom) and baptism of desire are efficacious because of their connection to water baptism. St. Augustine anticipated seemingly every subsequent objection to the doctrine back in Book IV, Chapter 22 of On Baptism, Against the Donatists, in which he said:
“That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, “Today shall you be with me in Paradise.” [Luke 23:43] On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, “With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” [Romans 10:10]
“But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment. For much more in the case of Cornelius and his friends, than in the case of that robber, might it seem superfluous that they should also be baptized with water, seeing that in them the gift of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the testimony of holy Scripture, was received by other men only after baptism, had made itself manifest by every unmistakable sign appropriate to those times when they spoke with tongues. Yet they were baptized, and for this action we have the authority of an apostle as the warrant. So far ought all of us to be from being induced by any imperfection in the inner man, if it so happen that before baptism a person has advanced, through the workings of a pious heart, to spiritual understanding, to despise a sacrament which is applied to the body by the hands of the minister, but which is God’s own means for working spiritually a man’s dedication to Himself.
“Nor do I conceive that the function of baptizing was assigned to John, so that it should be called John’s baptism, for any other reason except that the Lord Himself, who had appointed it, in not disdaining to receive the baptism of His servant, [Matthew 3:6, 13] might consecrate the path of humility, and show most plainly by such an action how high a value was to be placed on His own baptism, with which He Himself was afterwards to baptize. For He saw, like an excellent physician of eternal salvation, that overweening pride would be found in some, who, having made such progress in the understanding of the truth and in uprightness of character that they would not hesitate to place themselves, both in life and knowledge, above many that were baptized, would think it was unnecessary for them to be baptized, since they felt that they had attained a frame of mind to which many that were baptized were still only endeavoring to raise themselves.”
So baptism by blood or by desire are possible only in the case where water baptism is prevented (in Augustine’s words) by the necessity of the moment. It’s a recognition that (a) we’re called to obey God, but (b) He’s not a legalist, and He gives us no law that it is impossible to fulfill. No one will go to Hell for failing to do the impossible: by that principle alone, we know that no one will go to Hell for failing to be water baptized where such a thing was impossible.
My understanding – and correct me if I’m wrong – is that Protestants take a similar view, at least implicitly. After all, Protestants teach that we’re saved by faith alone, and that this is personal faith, and yet they don’t teach that infants are damned.
I.X.,
Joe
P.S. I disagree with David’s comment and tone, obviously.
CRAIG TRUGLIAAPRIL 10, 2015 AT 6:03 PM
How does someone get baptized in a middle of a shipwreck?
As I understand it, ships carry fresh water for their passengers to drink.
I suppose there is a priest on the ship?
The papal document you quoted is addressed to Priests.
The doctrine is “baptism by desire.”
“For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament” (CCC 1259).
The key word there, “catechumens”.
So, no, baptism is not required for salvation according to Catholic dogma.
Hm? You mean, to say, “So, no, (water) baptism is not required for salvation according to Catholic dogma.”
I can agree with that. However, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is required.
Normally, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is tied to the Sacrament of Baptism. When the water is poured and the words are pronounced, the Holy Spirit washes the soul of sin and regenerates the believer in the image of the Son.
However, God has shown that He can effectuate the Baptism of the Holy Spirit without the Sacrament of Baptism. Note the episode of St. Cornelius:
Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Therefore the Catholic Church says:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. 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. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
As a Protestant, teachings such as these where faith alone can save some
Faith alone can save no one:
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
(i.e. thief on the cross),
The Good Thief, whom we know as St. Dismas, did many good works upon the Cross. He professed Jesus and suffered beside Him. He admonished the sinner and gave good witness. The words which he spoke were recorded and have converted many sinners throughout history.
All those are works of gold.
But I think you’re objecting that he was not baptized. As mentioned before, God brings about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
It is Catholic Doctrine that in the Sacraments, it is Christ who works. It is Christ who brings about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit when the Priest pours the water and pronounces the words. Christ brought about the salvation of St. Dismas upon the Cross because of his faith and good works.
baptism can save others (infants dying soon after baptism),
No argument. That is Catholic Doctrine.
cont’d
cont’d
CRAIG TRUGLIAAPRIL 10, 2015 AT 6:03 PM
and god works save others (the baptized who fall into sin and by works receive absolution) appear to me inconsistent.
With what? Scripture is clear:
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
That which he refers to as the “word of reconciliation” is the same thing as the “absolution”.
Nonetheless, that is not the topic of the post here. The assertion of the author is that baptism is required for salvation. However, let it be known, that Catholic teaching has not, nor has it ever been, that literal water baptism is required for salvation. Baptism by blood and baptism by desire are sufficient for regeneration.
I’m not sure what happened there. It sounds as though you turned into a Catholic in mid-sentence.
@De Maria
“As I understand it, ships carry fresh water for their passengers to drink.”
They’re also surrounded by water, being that they are wrecked, but I imagine it is hard to baptize in the middle of sinking.
“The papal document you quoted is addressed to Priests.”
I interpreted what he wrote, perhaps wrongly. I took his words as meaning that if a Christian die in a plethora of circumstances, he is regenerated because he would have desired baptism . His instruction was to priests not to teach against it.
However, being that baptism by desire is a Catholic teaching, my point does not hinge upon that one quote.
“Faith alone can save no one”
http://christianreformedtheology.com/2015/02/25/saved-by-works-and-not-by-faith-alone-james-2-and-a-response-to-shameless-popery/
“The Good Thief, whom we know as St. Dismas, did many good works upon the Cross…”
Which sacraments did he take part in aside from a subjective, unobservable baptism? I suppose He confessed to Christ, as He is the first Confessor. So, if God strikes me dead right now, and I confess to you that maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about, that’s no good because you are not an ordained priest and Christ is THE high priest between man and God?
I think that St. Dismas exaggerates as what the thief did in a few moments were not acts that helped justify the thief. How do I know this? “For by grace you have been saved through faith…not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9).
How can I be saved by works if the Bible says my salvation is “not as a result of works?” How, does the work of baptism (unless it is God’s work of baptism by the Holy Spirit) or my work of faith (unless it is God’s work of opening my heart so that I confess Jesus Christ is Lord by the Holy Spirit), or any work save? Our works add nothing to our salvation, God’s works are the ones that save. That’s why if you actually read James 2 and the context he gives, and the parallels in Heb 11, the idea that works are an added component to justification is ridiculous. The plain meaning of Eph 2:9 mitigates against it.
“It sounds as though you turned into a Catholic in mid-sentence.”
I was summarizing Catholic thought.
@DAVID BRAINERD
Interesting you throw terms around like me having a mental disorder and no one rebukes you!
My mental disorders aside, I ask that you evaluate what I actually said instead of going onto tangents about how all baptists are going to hell and my mental illnesses!
@Joel
1. I missed your rebuke, sorry to throw you into the blanket statment.
2. Concerning what Augustine wrote: “But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment.”
Let me make clear that I am not arguing that believers should not be baptized. No one who, made a believer in Christ by the Holy Spirit, will reject water baptism. It is possible that the might get killed before getting baptized by water, but it is not up to the Christian to decide what part of God’s teachings they are going to follow and which he does not have to. “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it,” says Christ in Luke 11:28.
My point in this is that water is not an absolute literal requirement for regeneration, as blood or desire are sufficient means in which the Holy Spirit regenerates believers. Catholic teaching is that water, in a normative sense, is usually the means given the majority of circumstances.
Now, I do not believe that this is the case, because it certainly begs the question as to what and who really regenerates. However, being that baptismal regeneration is a very old teaching of the Church for 1800 years, and that unlike certain Protestant denominations the Catholic Church does not teach that those with faith, but without baptism, are unsaved, I do not view it as a reprehensible teaching. However, I do not like some of the applications (before Augustine’s time people delayed baptism until after marriage and death, and after Augustine’s time every single infant was baptized–both teachings that are not found in the written record before the third century.)
God bless,
Craig
CRAIG TRUGLIAAPRIL 11, 2015 AT 5:57 AM
The com box was getting really tiny, so I moved over here. Hope you don’t mind.
They’re also surrounded by water, being that they are wrecked, but I imagine it is hard to baptize in the middle of sinking.
I don’t know how you imagine a shipwreck. But I see it as a boat which has wrecked into some land mass. The people have gotten into their life boats and gone on shore. Read Acts 27.
I interpreted what he wrote, perhaps wrongly. I took his words as meaning that if a Christian die in a plethora of circumstances, he is regenerated because he would have desired baptism . His instruction was to priests not to teach against it.
Baptism of desire concerns catechumens who have already professed a desire to become Baptized Christians. It is not about any other non-Christian.
However, being that baptism by desire is a Catholic teaching, my point does not hinge upon that one quote.
Ok.
Which sacraments did he take part in aside from a subjective, unobservable baptism?
Sacraments are works of God.
Good works are righteous works which are in obedience to God’s Commands. There are many. Feed the hungry, help the poor, clothe naked, admonish the sinner, teach the ignorant, profess your faith before God and man, suffer for righteousness sake, etc. etc.
I suppose He confessed to Christ, as He is the first Confessor. So, if God strikes me dead right now, and I confess to you that maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about, that’s no good because you are not an ordained priest and Christ is THE high priest between man and God?
All confessions are to Jesus Christ. Even the ones which are directed at a Catholic Priest. Have you not read in Scripture?
2 Cor 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
God beseeches by His Priests and His Priests pray for us in place of Christ. That is why Priests are said to be in the “Person of Christ”.
cont’d
cont’d with Craig,
I think that St. Dismas exaggerates
The Good Thief’s name is St. Dismas.
as what the thief did in a few moments were not acts that helped justify the thief.
According to Scripture, they are precisely so.
He suffered with Christ.
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
He professed His faith in Christ before many witnesses:
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
He admonished the wicked convict hanging on the other cross:
1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
And his words, engraved in Scripture, have converted many sinners:
James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
How do I know this? “For by grace you have been saved through faith…not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9).
You misunderstand the verse. Scripture does not contradict itself:
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Certainly, we are saved by grace. That is Catholic Doctrine.
And certainly we are saved through faith. That is also Catholic Doctrine.
But notice that the verse you posted does not say we are saved by “faith alone”.
Why is that? Well, read the very next verse:
Ephesians 2:10King James Version (KJV)
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
This is a double entendre. It has two meanings.
When were we created in Christ Jesus?
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
So, we were knit in the womb, by Jesus Christ. We are his workmanship from the time He brought us into being for the purpose that we should walk in the Commandments which are the works which God the Father ordained.
How can I be saved by works if the Bible says my salvation is “not as a result of works?”
You’re mistaken. St. Paul is simply saying that we do not save ourselves by works apart from faith. This is the same thing which St. Luke teaches:
Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
St. Paul is also the one who says:
Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
cont’d
cont’d with Craig
How, does the work of baptism (unless it is God’s work of baptism by the Holy Spirit) or my work of faith (unless it is God’s work of opening my heart so that I confess Jesus Christ is Lord by the Holy Spirit), or any work save?
Precisely so. Good works which we do are God’s work through us:
Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Our works add nothing to our salvation,
That contradicts Scripture:
Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
God’s works are the ones that save. That’s why if you actually read James 2 and the context he gives, and the parallels in Heb 11, the idea that works are an added component to justification is ridiculous. The plain meaning of Eph 2:9 mitigates against it.
We can read James 2, whenever you’re ready. I’ve already shown you how you misunderstood Eph 2.
“It sounds as though you turned into a Catholic in mid-sentence.”
I was summarizing Catholic thought.
Good job. You’re on your way to being a Catholic. Keep the lines of communication open and keep studying the Scriptures. You’ll be swimming the Tiber in no time.
Sorry for the lengthy response. I wanted to address every point.
God bless you as well