Baptism: Sacrament or Ordinance

[Kaily]

Hi,

I’m Roman Catholic, but was listening to William Lane Craig on the Doctrine of the Church today, and had a hard time reconciling some of what he said with our belief in Baptism as a Sacrament (Not misread here, i DO believe Baptism is a sacrament, and conveys grace to the soul)

But how do you explain these verses he brought up?

For example:

He cited 2 Thes. 2:13-14 which mentions, election, calling, sanctification and faith as means of salvation, and does not mention Baptism,

Galations 3:1-5, 14,he stated that they put on Christ by hearing,

1 Cor. 1:13-17, when Paul says he did not come to baptize but to preach the Gospel

He says that water doesn’t necessarily coincide with water baptism, the Holy Spirit was given to believers apart from Baptism, gave the example Acts 18:25- Acts 19: 7 Apollos did not need to be re-baptized, but the others were who did not even hear of the HOly Spirit

Then he gave example of instances when people received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized, for example Cornelius and the other gentiles (he also brought up the counterarguments for some of these)

He also said all the gifts ascribed to baptism are also ascribed to faith such as, forgiveness of sins, union with Christ, membership in Church, Regeneration of Holy Spirit.

How do you reconcile that one has to be baptized in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, when there are examples in Scripture when the Holy Spirit is given apart from being baptized (i’m not questioning the Catholic position, just having a hard time understanding this)

Thanks,
Kaily

 

[Kaily]

Note: I meant he said water does not necessarily coincide with Holy Spirit baptism. (sorry misprint)

 

[NotWorthy]

Cornelius is easy. The way the Christian Church was set up, only Jews could become Christian. Cornelius, under the norms in Acts at the time, would have needed to be circumcised before becoming Baptized. The Holy Spirit had to show that this was not the case, hence, the special condition. If this was necessary, the growth of the Church into Gentile lands would have been severely hamstrung. If you wonder why circumcision was such a hurdle to get over, read Genesis 34.

But regarding Cornelius’ exception, remember, God is not bound by the rules that he set.

 

[PeterK]

Kaily,

How do you reconcile that one has to be baptized in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, when there are examples in Scripture when the Holy Spirit is given apart from being baptized (i’m not questioning the Catholic position, just having a hard time understanding this)

First, I don’t know that one* must* be baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit.
While one does indeed receives the Holy Spirit in Baptism, the Holy Spirit is not confined to working only within the lives of the baptized. The Spirit blows where it wills.

My understanding of Baptism is that it is the primary means available for one, here on earth, to enter the Church - The Body of Christ.

Peter K

 

[Kaily]

Hey,

Yeah, he actually gave that as the counterargument that sacramental people use, I was wondering about the other verses as well.

Thanks

 

[NotWorthy]

1 Cor. 1:13-17, when Paul says he did not come to baptize but to preach the Gospel

If you read ALL of 1 Corinthians, chapter 1, you’ll find that Paul is addressing all the divisions that are forming in the Church. Paul is glad that he didn’t baptize because people would be following him rather than Christ. If Paul didn’t Baptize, that would mean that he let others baptize while he preached. We see in Acts 16, with the Phillipian jailer, that Paul knows the necessity for Baptism. Its the first thing he does to the jailer (and his entire household, mind you!).

30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"*** 31 ****** And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.”****** 32 ****** So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house.****** 33 ****** He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once***.

In the middle of the night they were baptized. Couldn’t it wait til the morning? No, evidently not.

 

[NotWorthy]

Note: I meant he said water does not necessarily coincide with Holy Spirit baptism. (sorry misprint)

It seems that St. Peter would disagree with them. From 1 Peter, chapter 3

20 … while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.*** 21 ****** This prefigured baptism, which saves you now***. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[rocketrob]

Kaily,
I am having trouble seeing the basis of the fundamental objection to the idea of Baptism as a Sacrament. “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us…” (CCC 1131)

Baptism obviously meets the requirements of this definition:

“Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:5)

“And Jesus came and said to them…‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…’” (Matt 28:18-19)

Nothing in the quoted passages refutes or diminshes the fact that baptism is a Sacrament of the Church.

rocketrob

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

"He cited 2 Thes. 2:13-14 which mentions, election, calling, sanctification and faith as means of salvation, and does not mention Baptism,

Galations 3:1-5, 14,he stated that they put on Christ by hearing,

1 Cor. 1:13-17, when Paul says he did not come to baptize but to preach the Gospel

He says that water doesn’t necessarily coincide with water baptism, the Holy Spirit was given to believers apart from Baptism, gave the example Acts 18:25- Acts 19: 7 Apollos did not need to be re-baptized, but the others were who did not even hear of the HOly Spirit"

RESPONSE: Well first off, if sanctification/justification is part of baptism, why mention it? Belief is mentioned, yes. But Jesus contrasts belief and disobedience. This would seem to indicate that by belief, he means obedience. And what did he tell us to do? Get baptized.

As for Galations, there are other verses that speak of putting on Christ through baptism. And what is the message people heard, anyway? Repent, and be baptized. That’s almost as bad as the argument that when Peter says to be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord, that what’s really washing away your sins is calling on the name of the Lord. This ignores the specific water-linked term “washing” as well as the fact that by being baptized into the name of Jesus, you ARE calling on the name of the Lord.

All he has pointed out is that the Holy Spirit can move separately from baptism. He needs to prove it DOESN’T move through water. And just in case people want to argue that the Jews had no concept of it:

"I ran across something interesting. At the time of Christ, there was an 8th day celebration after the Sabbath at the conclusion to the Feast of Booths in which water was taken from the pool of Siloam. This was a rain festival celebrating God’s providence of rain for the crops and was supposedly the most joyous festival of the year. According to the Talmud, there was an explicit connection between this WATER celebration and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. They bolstered this with quotations from Isaiah about rain and wind (the word Ruach in Hebrew means both ‘wind’ and ‘spirit’). This festival (long after Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed) was eventually replaced with the festival of Simcha Torah which celebrates the Law which had been given to Israel. In John 7 when Jesus gives the “water of Life” discourse it is on the last and greatest day of the Feast of Booths which corresponds to this 8th day festival. Many Protestants deny any connection between water and the Holy Spirit in the Bible. I am afraid that the Jews and Jesus would disagree with them. "

Above by Dr. Art Sippo

 

[Kaily]

Thanks, this is all helpful to me.

The next topic he moved into was infant vs. adult baptism, infants can’t repent, etc… You know the arguments they use against infant baptism, can you explain that too, apart from using the verses where it says entire households were baptized, and he also said circumcision doesn’t necessarily parallel infant baptism because in one chapter of Scripture (sorry I don’t have it handy right now) he was speaking of circumcison of Christ, and this referred to Christ’s crucifixion, not his baptism, therefore we can’t parallel circumcision to baptism.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Colossians 2:11-12: “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.’”

Yeah, and guess what, Paul talks about being baptized into the crucifixion through baptism. So yes, just like Paul said (again, in that very same verse), circumcision IS analogous to baptism. You get baptized into the New same as circumcision got you into the Old. The only reason *some *of the early fathers didn’t get baptized as infants is because they truly did believe you got a clean slate, so some of them played with fire and tried to get it later in life. Which is in itself a damaging argument against the Protestant argument of symbolic baptism. They will get caught no matter what. Refer to the John ch. 3 thread, I make what’s called the “Ephesians” argument. Heck I’ll paste it below:

“The Ephesians argument.” ONE baptism. Not two. If Jesus really did mean to be baptized by the Holy Spirit (as a separate phenomena), then he lied, according to Ephesians 4. He did, as you agree, require us to be baptized by water as well. So he is saying that we will require two baptisms, and violate Ephesians 4, also inspired. There is no way out of this one. IF you separate the Spirit and the water, you have two baptisms, like it or not. And even if you argue that only the Holy Spirit is what saves, that still does not negate the fact that water baptism is at least required. Yet Ephesians says only one. You might protest that God brought the Holy Spirit and yet they still needed a second baptism so this would refute my argument. This is not so, however, since God can always come upon people to make a point. He can always add MORE Holy Spirit. This only reinforces my point that the Holy Spirit coming upon people (especially in the form of the gifts) was not the same thing as a salvific baptism, as many often seem to think. Proof of this is Cornelius. Peter was told to tell him what would save him , which we know would be the gospel and baptism. Cornelius had the Holy Spirit come upon him, but before Peter had gotten into his speech of salvation. God wouldn’t tell Peter to do something to waste his time. He still had to tell him what to do to be saved. Again, these examples in Acts are distinct from salvific baptism.

The only way to reconcile the Ephesians 4 argument is this: It’s not just water, and it’s not just the Holy Spirit. You are “calling on the name” of the Trinity, and pledging yourself through the water and the Spirit as one. Otherwise, it isn’t one baptism

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

For more on infant baptism, let’s take this first passage in Matthew 19:13-14: “Then children were brought to him that he may lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked them, but Jesus said, 'Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom to heaven belongs so such as these.”
Now the word for children used in Matthew for “children” is the Greek word “paidion,” which means “infants” or in some cases little children. Now since this word has a dual meaning, how do we figure out which one it is? Well, the story is also covered in Luke 18:15-16:“People were bringing even infants to Him that He might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus however, called the children to himself and said, ‘Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.’”
Now the word Luke specifically uses for these children is “brephos,” which means “infants” and “unborn children or children in the womb.” He then, in referring to these same infants, calls them the same Greek word as Matthew, “paidion.” This shows that of the two possible meanings of “aidon,” “infants” is the correct understanding.
Now why is this important? Because Jesus is laying hands on them. When Christ himself does this, this is obviously sacramental. More importantly, he is doing this to babies that have no concept of the protestant idea of “making an adult decision to be saved.” The parents’ faith substitutes for their children. He says “do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” So why would Protestants hinder their children by refusing them baptism until they are adults?

Acts 2:38-39: “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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.’”
In the above, repentance and baptism is what gives salvation. That promise is given to the adults and their children. If salvation is for children too, and baptism is part of it, then children (infants also, as shown in the gospels) must be baptized.

Also, the “baptizing households” argument is still very valid. Why? Because I have been to the Middle East. Kids running everywhere. You expect me to believe in a Jewish society where children are a blessing, the household ONLY had children at the age of reason? Highly doubtful. It honestly sometimes bothers me that some people Like Craig or NT Wright have such brilliant exegesis, then seem to get sloppy when it comes to the Catholic elements. Maybe it’s just my own bias, so I’ll shutup now.

 

[rocketrob]

The next topic he moved into was infant vs. adult baptism…

Kaily,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses the topic of baptism very nicely and completely in Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml#chpt1

The baptism of infants is specifically addressed in paragraphs 1250 thru 1252:

The Baptism of infants

1250
Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

1251
Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.

1252
The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.

Each ‘mature’ individual has the chance (and obligation) to affirm the promises made at their baptism as they fully enter into communion with the Church through the remaining Sacraments if Initiation: Confirmation and the Eucharist (CCC 1275).

A thorough treatment of the topics raised in this post (baptism as a sacrament vs. ordinance, baptism & circumcision, and infant baptism) has been posted by Catholic Answers here: catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

Additional tracts on the Sacraments are here: catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp

Kaily, it appears from some of your other posts that you are often being confronted with views that challenge the Truths contained in the Catholic Faith. I myself am a convert who found the fullness of the Catholic Faith after being married to a Catholic for several years. I would encourage you to remain strong in your faith, and know that all challenges can be met and answered. The answers are often found very nicely presented in the Catechism. I would suggest you continue to go to that blessed source to get the information directly, and in the words of the Church itself.

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks, this is all helpful to me.

The next topic he moved into was infant vs. adult baptism, infants can’t repent, etc… You know the arguments they use against infant baptism, can you explain that too, apart from using the verses where it says entire households were baptized, and he also said circumcision doesn’t necessarily parallel infant baptism because in one chapter of Scripture (sorry I don’t have it handy right now) he was speaking of circumcison of Christ, and this referred to Christ’s crucifixion, not his baptism, therefore we can’t parallel circumcision to baptism.

Do not ignore the fact that the Church has practiced infant baptism since the very 1st century.

 

[Kaily]

For more on infant baptism, let’s take this first passage in Matthew 19:13-14: “Then children were brought to him that he may lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked them, but Jesus said, 'Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom to heaven belongs so such as these.”
Now the word for children used in Matthew for “children” is the Greek word “paidion,” which means “infants” or in some cases little children. Now since this word has a dual meaning, how do we figure out which one it is? Well, the story is also covered in Luke 18:15-16:“People were bringing even infants to Him that He might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus however, called the children to himself and said, ‘Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.’”
Now the word Luke specifically uses for these children is “brephos,” which means “infants” and “unborn children or children in the womb.” He then, in referring to these same infants, calls them the same Greek word as Matthew, “paidion.” This shows that of the two possible meanings of “aidon,” “infants” is the correct understanding.
Now why is this important? Because Jesus is laying hands on them. When Christ himself does this, this is obviously sacramental. More importantly, he is doing this to babies that have no concept of the protestant idea of “making an adult decision to be saved.” The parents’ faith substitutes for their children. He says “do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” So why would Protestants hinder their children by refusing them baptism until they are adults?

Acts 2:38-39: “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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.’”
In the above, repentance and baptism is what gives salvation. That promise is given to the adults and their children. If salvation is for children too, and baptism is part of it, then children (infants also, as shown in the gospels) must be baptized.

Also, the “baptizing households” argument is still very valid. Why? Because I have been to the Middle East. Kids running everywhere. You expect me to believe in a Jewish society where children are a blessing, the household ONLY had children at the age of reason? Highly doubtful. It honestly sometimes bothers me that some people Like Craig or NT Wright have such brilliant exegesis, then seem to get sloppy when it comes to the Catholic elements. Maybe it’s just my own bias, so I’ll shutup now.

Thanks for the resources, yes the catechism is a good resource. I’ve read some of the article from Catholic Answers, thanks for bringing it to my attention again. The problem I find with some evangelicals, is they always seem to have some sort of answer for the points that Catholics bring up, and it seems nearly impossible to convince them otherwise. I really respect William Lane Craig, and he is a lot fairer than other protestants I’ve come across. I’m married to a protestant, so I’m trying to get to know both sides better. I don’t question my Catholic Faith, I know there are answers to the disagreements they have with us. William Lane Craig does at least admit when he isn’t sure of something, and he admitted that he hasn’t read the early church fathers much on this issue. I think that is when protestants usually end up converting is when they delve deeply into the history of the early church, but unfortunately people like him don’t seem to think it’s very necessary, and if the early fathers favor something like baptism, then they’ll say they were in error in reading Scripture.

Something I think that would be helpful are podcasts. It seems like Protestants have a lot more free resources than Catholics. If you go to itunes, you find tons of Protestant speakers that delve into each topic regarding Church doctrine, salvation, etc… I can barely find any Catholic resources on itunes that is offered at no cost. I know Catholic answers has something, but I’m looking for more of the format that some protestants offer: one speaker who is teaching on all these subjects, giving the various viewpoints of the different churches, and then offering the rebuttal. Do you know of anything like this?

God Bless

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ask and ye shall receive:

bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm

 

[rocketrob]

The problem I find with some evangelicals, is they always seem to have some sort of answer for the points that Catholics bring up, and it seems nearly impossible to convince them otherwise.

The question is are the ‘answers’ valid. It would seem that all of the evangelical points that you’ve brought up in this thread have been pretty effectively refuted.

All you can do is keep consistently stating the Truth. Its been my experience that the rest is up to the Holy Spirit.

William Lane Craig does at least admit when he isn’t sure of something, and he admitted that he hasn’t read the early church fathers much on this issue. I think that is when protestants usually end up converting is when they delve deeply into the history of the early church, but unfortunately people like him don’t seem to think it’s very necessary, and if the early fathers favor something like baptism, then they’ll say they were in error in reading Scripture.

I don’t know of this particular person, but it would seem to me that reading the works of the first Christians would be a pre-requisite before articulating any personal opinions on major tenets of the Christian faith. To dismiss their works seems to convey an attitude of extreme arrogance, or fear of the Truth…or both. It is amazing how many committed and outspoken protestants have ‘Come Home to Rome’ after delving deeply into the works of the Church Fathers.

I’m married to a protestant, so I’m trying to get to know both sides better.

As I mentioned, I was once the protestant half of an interfaith marriage. For many years, I simply dismissed the idea of looking into the ‘Catholic side’ of things. It wasn’t fair to my wife, and I eventually discovered that I was wrong. I pray that your husband is making as much of an effort as you are in learning about the differing viewpoints on these issues.

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

If it makes you feel better, my wife was Catholic, and I was Protestant. I set out vigorously to make her Protestant. Yeah…

 

[rocketrob]

If it makes you feel better, my wife was Catholic, and I was Protestant. I set out vigorously to make her Protestant. Yeah…

Awesome…and I thought I was unique.

rocketrob

 

[Kaily]

If it makes you feel better, my wife was Catholic, and I was Protestant. I set out vigorously to make her Protestant. Yeah…

You both give me great hope!! Pray for his full conversion he loves Jesus, but isn’t too interested in delving into Catholicism side of things yet, he does love to debate and read theological works thought, unfortunately mostly protestant works.