It is because I love my brethren in the Catholic Church that I take the time here on this site. I have no hate in my heart towards anyone. Nor do I make declarative statements of condemnation over people like many do on this site.Do you find it difficult to love devout Catholics when you are so hateful toward Catholicism?
What N.T. passage do you use to support this view?the washing of regeneration is applied based on the faith of those bringing the infant.
No… I am saying if you want a spiritual solution, you need a spiritual means to it.I guess you are denying that God works through material things. I suppose you would also say that mud Jesus applied to the eyes of the blind does not become a healing path spiritually as it does physically.
This scripture at first glance seems to make your point, but again the word “water” is not in the passage which leaves it up to us to interpret it without the concept of water.“And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” Acts 22
I think a key to understanding Catholic theology, as opposed to Protestant, is to keep in mind it is incarnational and therefore physical (avoiding what I think is an at least subtle gnostic element), it considers the Faith to have a visible element, and it well accounts for life being a struggle where we can win or lose our salvation at any point.Under Catholic theology, if someone comes to a genuine faith in Christ, are they considered “born again” (filled with the Holy Spirit, adopted, new creations) at conversion or at baptism?
Jesus, who did not “need” to be baptized. He was baptized to show us an example. When He entered the water, the Holy Spirit and the Father were present in through the baptismal waters. This Triune testimony to the salvific nature of baptism was necessary to distinguish Jesus’ baptism from Johns.I am a bit confused. Jesus joined the Holy Spirit to the waters of the Jordan…what are you saying?
Perhaps it might be better expressed that the Holy Spirit has never been separated from teh baptismal waters of Christ.The Holy Spirit has never been separated from baptism into Christ?
All those who are validly baptized with a trinitarian formula receive the Holy Spirit. At confirmation, a candidate takes upon themselves the vows made by their parents and godparents at their baptism. Confirmation is an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to be released in power within the believer.I thought the Holy Spirit for the Catholic is received at confirmation. Isn’t it the Orthodox who receive the Holy Spirit at baptism?
You are right that there were precedents in anabaptist thought. All who adopted this view were considered heretics.Anabaptistic thought was not original with the Anabaptists of the 1500s. What about the Waldensians etc.?
Ok. I disagree with the declarative statements of condemnation, but I will accept your testimony of good will. Do you expect you will be able to convert Catholics to the true Gospel?It is because I love my brethren in the Catholic Church that I take the time here on this site. I have no hate in my heart towards anyone. Nor do I make declarative statements of condemnation over people like many do on this site.
Many!What N.T. passage do you use to support this view?
The two are not mutually exclusive, tgG. The prophet told Naaman to wash in the Jordan to receive a healing. This was a miracle of God, to show Naaman that the God of the Jews was real. 2 Kings 5I am saying if you want a spiritual solution, you need a spiritual means to it.
Indeed we are. You seem to be limiting how God works through the natural.We are talking about spiritual truths conveyed through spiritual means and not so much natural.
No, tgG. You may find it expedient to interpret this passage according to your recieved Reformation theology, but we are not free to do this. We must interpret it through the lens of Sacred Tradition, which is the teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.This scripture at first glance seems to make your point, but again the word “water” is not in the passage which leaves it up to us to interpret it without the concept of water.
Catholics are not free to add or subtract from scripture “in our minds” as those who espouse Sola Scriptura. We are only permitted to interpret within the boundaries of what the Apostles taught. The Apostles taught that baptism washes away sins, and that we die to ourselves, and are clothed in Christ through it.We can either add “water” in our minds, as if this is what the author intended to say, … or we can see the concept of baptism beyond the physical, to the spiritual as in the case of Galatians 3:27 when Paul said,
“for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Or Romans 6:3,
"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
Col. 2:12 says we were “buried with Him in baptism”
In all of these passages, the word water is missing but let us interpret, for instance, the col. 2:12 passage as if water was intended.
We were “buried with Him in water baptism…” Why would we spiritualize one part of the verse and literalize the other? This is a huge mistake to do so.
I am sorry, I am having trouble finding a problem with this. The Apostles taught that we are cleansed of all original and person sin in baptism. This is why candidates have always worn white garments at baptism. Rising from the waters they are born again from above by water and Spirit. On the contrary, I think it is a huge mistake to separeat the water from the Spirit.We can either add “water” in our minds, as if this is what the author intended to say, … or we can see the concept of baptism beyond the physical, to the spiritual as in the case of Galatians 3:27 when Paul said,
“for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Or Romans 6:3,
"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
Col. 2:12 says we were “buried with Him in baptism”
I guess this demonstrates your either/or thnking. For Cathoilcs, it is both literal, and spiritual. In your theology, apparently they are separated. The Apostles taught that there are literal (real) events/figures that are spiritual, but not physical. Angels are a good example of this.They are quite literally real, but not physical. In baptism death and resurrection literally occur on the spiritual plane. I do understand how this is “nonsensical”, though.Either the entire verse is literal, or, it is spiritual. Okay… we know we were not literally buried with Christ, therefore, water baptism was not the way or the means to bury us with him… that would be nonsensical.
Well, we see it differently. For Catholics, the literaly and physical Body of Christ is alive and well on planet earth.In the Galatian 3;27 passage, notice that Christ is the object to which we are baptized. We know that literally and physically we were NOT baptized into the literal, physical, body of Christ. Because, again, that would be nonsensical. But we were spiritually baptized into the spiritual body which Christ is the head.
Well, we see it differently. You are sounding like a Saducee, who does not believe that the spiritual can enter into the physical plane. For us, “literal” means “actual” or “real”. There is a physical washing that happens in baptism, but it is not for cleansing the body. It is for cleansing the soul. The washing away of sins happens through the circumcision made without hands (by the Holy Spirit). It is amazing that you can read so many scriptural stories of the spiritual breaking through into the physical, yet you do not believe.The washing away of sins, is a spiritual wash, not literal.
we are in agreement here. We believe that the blood of Christ is applied to the believer in baptism, so the work of the cross is effected in the individuals’ life. Where we do not seem to agree is that God will also act on the basis of the faith of those who come on behalf of the helplessThe washing away of sins, is a spiritual wash, not literal. And it takes the application of the cross, or Christ blood on the cross to do the cleansing. By faith, we accept His atoning work on the cross and it becomes appropriated or applied to us when we “believe.”
The Apostles did not teach that baptism removed Original Sin. The term Original Sin had not yet been created. The Apostles were Jewish, and the Jewish faith does not have the concept of Original Sin.I am sorry, I am having trouble finding a problem with this. The Apostles taught that we are cleansed of all original and person sin in baptism. This is why candidates have always worn white garments at baptism. Rising from the waters they are born again from above by water and Spirit. On the contrary, I think it is a huge mistake to separeat the water from the Spirit.
I am responding to the posts in the thread. It is being proposed that “baptism” is not related to being “born again”. The modern evangelical “believers baptism” is that people are converted/born again then are baptized with water as a “public declaration” of their new faith. This is a concept that emanated from the Reformation. It teaches that baptism is not regenerative, as the Apostles believed and taught.I see you mentioning in a few posts about separating baptism from the Holy Spirit. Do you have any documentation of someone teaching this?
Yes, I agree. Peter did not separate the presence of the Holy Spirit from the water either, and ordered that those upon whom the Spirit fell should be baptized immediately. But, it has been argued on this forum that this baptism has nothing to do with water.I think to teach that the Holy Spirit can come on someone before baptism (like we see with Cornelius and his family in Acts 10) is different than saying the Holy Spirit is completely irrelevant to baptism.
I think where the disagreement exists is how that presence works. The Apostles taught that the Holy Spirit circumcises the heart - spiritually and the person is saved through the waters of baptism by that action.The Holy Spirit is not bound to our ceremonial timing, but is very much present in the baptism ceremony.
I am not an expert on Original Sin as I find it confusing. I certainly don’t want to speak as an authority for what a certain denomination believes. However my understanding is that most all Christians today believe in the fall of man and that all humans have a sinful nature. I also understand and agree with this concept of original sin. This is quite different from The Doctrine of Original Sin written in the 5th century by Augustine in response to Pelagius. Many Christians do not adhere to Augustine’s doctrine while still believing that mankind has a sinful nature.Hey Susan, good to see you!
Im not so sure about Anabaptists, but i thought most Evangelical Christians do believe in the doctrine of Original Sin.
How can Original Sin not be “removed” or forgiven at Baptism?
OS might best be understood as a lack of Sanctifying Grace, no? Not so much as a “stain” but the lack of a restored relationship with God based on the sin of our first parents.
What Catholics can acknowledge, is that Baptism does not trump disbelief, or a “vain belief” as St Paul would express a “faith alone”.I think where the disagreement exists is how that presence works. The Apostles taught that the Holy Spirit circumcises the heart - spiritually and the person is saved through the waters of baptism by that action.
Maybe all that doublespeak will get his wall? Honestly, I am worried about his mind/cognitive functioning. Does he know what he wants? Can he say what he means, or is he confused on the inside as well?He’s perfect for both sides because he don’t care as long as he sign the bill.
We have technology that should be applied to the illegal immigration problem. It is as much people who are already here as any who have not yet arrived.Making it easy to tax, track and evaluate immigrants so that there is no incentive for them to come illegally is the best way to secure the border against the illegal entry for the purpose of terrorism or drugs trafficking.
Amen!Or better see good where good exists and recognize evil where it exists… try to help others move to the good and away from the evil
Original Sin, Adam’s stain, Ancestral Sin, and so forth were not terms that they used as a reason for baptism.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not the same as baptism with water. When we read through Acts we see that what happens is that people hear about Jesus, believe, and are then baptized immediately. The new believers weren’t sent to complete a catechism or membership class, but were baptized right away. I think over time humans have separated the event of belief/baptism of the Holy Spirit from water baptism because of the need for classes prior to water baptism. I think in the first century these events both occurred at the same time and were more obviously associated.I am responding to the posts in the thread. It is being proposed that “baptism” is not related to being “born again”. The modern evangelical “believers baptism” is that people are converted/born again then are baptized with water as a “public declaration” of their new faith. This is a concept that emanated from the Reformation. It teaches that baptism is not regenerative, as the Apostles believed and taught.
Yes, I agree. Peter did not separate the presence of the Holy Spirit from the water either, and ordered that those upon whom the Spirit fell should be baptized immediately. But, it has been argued on this forum that this baptism has nothing to do with water.
I think where the disagreement exists is how that presence works. The Apostles taught that the Holy Spirit circumcises the heart - spiritually and the person is saved through the waters of baptism by that action.