Biblical Support for Sacraments being a vehicle of grace

[rcwitness]

The Holy Spirit is always working in a person seeking Baptism. They are already placed in a place of conversion and desire for Baptism. Belief must accompany an adult seeking Baptism, or it would be a vain and disingenuous act on their behalf.

Let me ask you this… do you believe Simon the Magician was Baptized again after his repentance?

He believed, was Baptized, but sinned mortally in his heart. I believe his encounter with Peter was an admonishment and then a possible Reconciliation.

 

[guanophore]

Really,… Jesus was standing in his own body and held up bread and said, this is my body!

Actually, He was probably "reclining at table, but yes, this is the testimony of the Early Church. Why does this sound so impossible to you? Do you not believe in any miracles?

Did He mean it was the literal body he simultaneously dwelt in?

No. When He told the disciples they must eat His Body and drink His blood to have life in themselves, he was speaking of His mystical body (post resurrection). He was not promoting cannabalism!

Please show me this teaching in the foundations of biblical thought. Please show me how Paul taught this, how Peter taught it. It is a nice way to explain it, but falls short of biblical reality.

For you, it would, because of the preconcieved notions through which you approach the Scripture. You read it from an anti-Catholic mindset, so you will not be able to “see” what we “see” in the passages. It is about that lens/filter. Catholics read through what was delivered to us from the Apostles.

This did not happen in the moment He said the words. Therefore His speech cannot be taken literal and physical.

Well, we see it differently, don’t we? You will not be able to prove that Jesus was not truly and substantially present in the appearances of bread and wine. Neither can we prove to you that He is. This is why we call it a mystery.

Depending specifically on what you’re talking about, the “means” to God’s grace or forgiveness of sins, is God Himself. God is the actor and we are the recipiants. We have access to the very throne-room of grace by simply going there in prayer freely. His Grace is offered to all because God Himself has offered it.

Grace, or God’s favor is a spiritual favor and our reception of it is firstly spiritual. So God offers this grace to us freely but is not confined or limited by any particular physical or natural “means.” This point is clearly patterned for us over and over again in N.T. scripture.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

 

[guanophore]

The concept of quote “a vehicle of grace” is someone’s invention not found or supported in New Testament thinking.

You have been given many examples of this, tgG, but you have rejected them all.

Notice how he did not include a natural or physical means to receiving that grace, or, salvation. Why not? It was not in his thinking to do so. When Jesus said, “God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not parish but have everlasting life,…” Notice in the proclamation He did not include any natural or physical “means” to obtaining it. Again, this point is patterned throughout His teachings on how one receives eternal life.

Accurate interpretation of the text must incorporate all of the text. This is a basic principle of hermeneutics. Forming a theology from one verse will inevitably lead a person astray. Demanding that “if B is true, then it must have been stated in A” is also projecting your own demands onto the text.

The bible was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. Most of the NT was written to address specific concerns. To say that a certain perspective was “not his (the writer’s) perspective” because you do not find a certain word or phrase in a verse is a preposterous demand to make of the text.

If He wants to save a soul from hell He will not need water to do it or any other natural means for that matter.

True, and consistent with Catholic teaching.

Nor does the seeker need another person as a means to help them convert to Christ other than for them to simply preach and communicate the truth of the gospel. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

And part of that hearinng is to come in unity with the One Body, the Church. This is done in baptism, where the recipient is made a building block into Christ’s building.

External, natural, ritualistic, and/or physical means to an end may be found in the O.T. where the people of God were natural people. A natural message using natural means to a natural conclusion was the way God spoke to Israel.

This is an extremely truncated view of the spirituality of Israel. It seems to invoke the perspective that people in the OT did not have the “spiritual man” and could not walk in the Spirit. The indwelling of the HS does not mean we ceased to be human, with natural bodies, and natural sensibilities.

Where did Paul in Ephesian 2:8 talk about sacraments? You are not consistent with Paul’s clear teaching here. Where are sacraments mentioned in the many passages in John’s gospel concerning eternal life? John didn’t mention it, why are you?

We just see something different when we read the text, tgG. Those who have receive the Apostolic faith that has been handed down do see these sacred traditions evident in Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

If the New Testament was teaching that water baptism was a necessary condition to be met in order for one to be eternally saved, there would be a consistency of thought without hit and miss verses, some including baptism and others not.

Perhaps. Since our doctrine is not extracted from Scripture, we don’t have this expectation. On the other hand, Catholic doctrine produced the Scriptures, so we understand what is written in the light of what we were taught. But I agree with you, and the Church does not teach what you state here.

If He wanted to, He could have added water baptism, repentance, or any other condition to new birth, but you will not find such a notion.

We do see these notions, but it is because we perceive what is written differently.

This verse does not sum up, doctrinally, what the New Testament as a whole has said about this.

Maybe this is the stumbling block, because you seem to expect to see certain words or phrases in specific verses that “sum up, doctrinally”. Maybe this is a consequence of extracting doctrines from the texts?

I’m not sure how I got into this discussion in the first place.

You seeem to have a passionate anti-Catholic sentiment that needs to be expressed.

I don’t know if Christ needs us to use water in order for regeneration to occur - or that He withholds regeneration and the Holy Spirit until the end of catechism class.

The Church does not teach that God needs the water. The sacraments are for us, not for Him!

I know personally that one need not wait until the end of Catechism class!

 

[susanlo]

The Church does not teach that God needs the water. The sacraments are for us, not for Him!

I know personally that one need not wait until the end of Catechism class!

I am confused as to what we are disagreeing on. You had replied earlier in the thread that Anabaptists and then others have separated the Holy Spirit from baptism with water. I answered that baptism with the Holy Spirit does not occur in the same timing as baptism with water, yet that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit is not part of the water baptism ceremony. Now it sounds like you are also in agreement that the Holy Spirit can fall on a person before water baptism. I am sure if you have personal experience with the Holy Spirit being active in a person prior to water baptism, you would not then declare that the subsequent water baptism was without spiritual meaning and devoid of the Holy Spirit. So I think we are in agreement?! As per the original thread topic we may disagree with the terminology of grace and so forth, but we are in agreement that the Holy Spirit can work outside of our timing of water baptism and also during water baptism.

 

[susanlo]

The Holy Spirit is always working in a person seeking Baptism. They are already placed in a place of conversion and desire for Baptism. Belief must accompany an adult seeking Baptism, or it would be a vain and disingenuous act on their behalf.

Let me ask you this… do you believe Simon the Magician was Baptized again after his repentance?

He believed, was Baptized, but sinned mortally in his heart. I believe his encounter with Peter was an admonishment and then a possible Reconciliation.

Why would Simon the Magician have been baptized again? I don’t know what happened with him.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

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.

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.

My intent was to point out what the Apostles taught (or didn’t teach) about the purpose of baptism. Original Sin, Adam’s stain, Ancestral Sin, and so forth were not terms that they used as a reason for baptism.

The phrase “sinful nature” apparently isnt something Catholics use. I used it here and it opened a debate. I guess Catholic Teaching is that we have a wounded nature (by sin) which is inclined to sin.

This Wiki article about concupiscence might help. It offers differences with Catholic and Protestant theology.

Concupiscence - Wikipedia

 

[rcwitness]

I was under the impression that some non-Catholics will re-Baptize if they did not have a genuine conversion prior to their Baptism. Simon “believed” and was Baptized, then saw that the Holy Spirit was given through laying on of hands. He then wished to purchase this gift. Peter harshly rebuked his motive. Did Simon have a genuine conversion? If not, would he be expected to be Baptized anew?

 

[rcwitness]

An interesting Catholic footnote to the Samaritans receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:

8:16 Here and in Acts 10:44–48 and Acts 19:1–6, Luke distinguishes between baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus and the reception of the Spirit. In each case, the Spirit is conferred through members of the Twelve (Peter and John) or their representative (Paul). This may be Luke’s way of describing the role of the church in the bestowal of the Spirit. Elsewhere in Acts, baptism and the Spirit are more closely related (Acts 1:5; 11:16).

Catholics recognize Confimation being involved in the initiation of a Christian and receiving the Holy Spirit.

Jesus bestows Confirmation on the Twelve, when He breathes on themto receive the Holy Spirit, recorded in John 20.

 

[susanlo]

I am not familiar with an example of an adult saying, “I was just kidding when I got baptized last year. This year I believe for real. Now I want a real baptism.” I am not sure how that would be handled. Hmmmm…

There is a difference between someone believing in Jesus, but later falling into sin - and someone who received a water ceremony before they were old enough to make a decision to profess their belief in Jesus. Many Christians would not consider a baptism done without one’s consent as a true baptism. They will baptize this person who has never received a believer’s baptism. This is not considered a 2nd baptism, but a 1st believer’s baptism. They do not teach that baptism needs repeating after each sin

Whether Simon the Magician believed but was later tempted by power, or if he never believed but was faking it to try and seek power from the beginning, I don’t know.

 

[rcwitness]

The main issue of my point is whether Baptism has efficacy regardless of a proper interior conversion or not.

I didnt imply someone would say “i was only joking” but rather going along with Baptism for reasons other than an interior conversion.

Simon believed, this much is known. But to what extent and purpose?

Catholics reject a re-Baptism even if someone lacked a genuine conversion of heart. The grace of forgiveness from God was still efficacious.

If the purpose of Baptism is to display, publicly, an “interior Baptism” as suggeated, then one would need to Baptize again if their previous Baptism was not the result of a genuine interior conversion.

 

[lanman87]

I was under the impression that some non-Catholics will re-Baptize if they did not have a genuine conversion prior to their Baptism. Simon “believed” and was Baptized, then saw that the Holy Spirit was given through laying on of hands. He then wished to purchase this gift. Peter harshly rebuked his motive. Did Simon have a genuine conversion? If not, would he be expected to be Baptized anew?

The only person who could answer that question would be Simon.

I have seen people get re-baptized. It doesn’t happen often but it does happen. In all the instances I’ve seen (2 or 3) the person said that they got baptized the first time without having a saving faith in Christ. One person said she made a “profession of faith” and a teenager because her friends did and it was she was baptized because of peer pressure. Years later, even though she had participated in church and was religious, she was convicted of the fact that she never really “trusted Jesus”. She had had an emotional experience and believed who Jesus was but that belief had never led to a saving faith. Her heart had never changed and she had never really placed her trust in Christ. After she came to saving faith in Christ she asked to be re-baptized as a believer.

The Baptist Church doesn’t go around telling people that they need to get re-baptized. Even if they fall into a sinful life and come back to Christ in repentance we don’t instruct them to be re-baptized. However, if a baptized person says they fell into a sinful lifestyle because they didn’t really have a saving faith in Christ then that person will sometimes request to be re-baptized as a believer.

That is why I say the only person who can answer that question is Simon. It was his heart that needed changing, it was he that either became a new creation or didn’t, it was he that was either adopted by God or not. And only Simon could have a peace or conviction that those things actually happened or not. We can judge someones actions and words, but sometimes those things can be faked or done out of obligation to teaching or religious/cultural expectations and not as a result of having a deep and abiding faith in Christ.

Ultimately that is the questions for each of us. Do we love Jesus and follow our religion because that is what we were taught to do, or because someone expects to do those things, or to try and get something for ourselves, or to try and impress others? Or do we love Jesus and follow our religion because God has changed our hearts and as a result we want Him to be glorified in all things.

 

[lanman87]

This Wiki article about concupiscence might help. It offers differences with Catholic and Protestant theology.

This thread got me to reading about different interpretations of original sin. From some Southern Baptist sources I found that the Southern Baptist church teaches that while all mankind inherits a sinful nature none of us are actually guilty of sin until we willfully sin. That is why Baptist hold that unconverted infants and small children will go to heaven. They aren’t old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong from either a moral or religious perspective. Therefore, if little 2 year old Johnny steals his sisters doll and hits her over the head with it then little Johnny hasn’t sinned because he doesn’t fully understand that it is wrong.

However, all children at some point come to understand the difference between right and wrong, even if it is from a secular perspective. And because of the sin nature at some point all children will sin and understand it is wrong then at that point if they die without trusting in Christ they will go to Hell.

 

[rcwitness]

Ok, debating this with three different Protestants means a moving target, or three possible belief systems.

Simon believed and was Baptized.

Then Peter said “may you perish with your money”.

This means (according to tgGodsway) he was never saved. Which means he was never Baptized interiorly. Which means his water Baptism was disingenuous!

Do you see the dilemma?

 

[MT1926]

I am not familiar with an example of an adult saying, “I was just kidding when I got baptized last year. This year I believe for real. Now I want a real baptism.” I am not sure how that would be handled. Hmmmm…

There is a difference between someone believing in Jesus, but later falling into sin - and someone who received a water ceremony before they were old enough to make a decision to profess their belief in Jesus.

The reason you say you haven’t seen this is because you are arguing between Catholic infant Baptism and Evangelical Adult Baptism. This occurs all of the time in non-Catholic circles. I agree the person doesn’t probably say “I was just kidding”. But I’m sure it is said all of the time I didn’t know what it meant to believe when I was Baptized a (insert protestant denomination here) but now that I know what it means to believe I want to be Baptized a (insert protestant denomination here). Baptism doesn’t work that way, Baptism is a work of the Holy Spirit. If it is based on what we believe then it is man centered.

Many Christians would not consider a baptism done without one’s consent as a true baptism. They will baptize this person who has never received a believer’s baptism. This is not considered a 2nd baptism, but a 1st believer’s baptism.

My question would be why? I’m sure you would agree that God doesn’t need our consent before He does something?

Also, some would consider baptism without one’s belief in Christ that lines up with their belief as not being a “true baptism” either. So what would this prove. To me it would prove that their Baptism is man centered.

This is the whole point on Baptism. Is one born anew in Baptism because of what we believe (especially when some denominations claim you didn’t believe correctly the first time) or is one born anew in Baptism because of the work of the Holy Spirit, regardless of what we believe?

 

[lanman87]

I understand the dilemma. That is why I’ve pretty much stopped using the word Protestant on this board and try to identify myself as an Evangelical with a Southern Baptist tradition.

I was simply pointing out that for any of us, our spiritual state is something only we personally can have a peace about or be convicted about.

I tend to agree with tgGodways that Simon was probably never converted in the first place. Mainly because it appears that he was a shady person who probably was an opportunist. Peter also tells him You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”

I tend to agree with the folks that say the intent of his heart from the beginning was to find out the source of the apostles power, to try and get it, and use it for personal gain. And he feigned belief and was baptized in order to build trust from the apostles and believers.

I really wish Simon’s story was elaborated on further. We don’t know if his final recorded sentence. And Simon answered, Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.” was a snarky sarcastic retort, a lament and acceptance of his non-belief, or a sign of repentance.

 

[lanman87]

This is the whole point on Baptism. Is one born anew in Baptism because of what we believe (especially when some denominations claim you didn’t believe correctly the first time) or is one born anew in Baptism because of the work of the Holy Spirit, regardless of what we believe?

Well, Southern Baptist don’t believe one is born anew in baptism. We believe one is born anew at conversion. Baptism is part of the conversion process but it is the last part that signifies that conversion has happened.

 

[MT1926]

Well, Southern Baptist don’t believe one is born anew in baptism. We believe one is born anew at conversion. Baptism is part of the conversion process but it is the last part that signifies that conversion has happened.

That is fine and would be an entirely different debate. My point is are you born anew because of your “emotional experience” or are you born anew because of the Holy Spirit.

Let’s take your example above.

One person said she made a “profession of faith” and a teenager because her friends did and it was she was baptized because of peer pressure. Years later, even though she had participated in church and was religious, she was convicted of the fact that she never really “trusted Jesus”. She had had an emotional experience and believed who Jesus was but that belief had never led to a saving faith. Her heart had never changed and she had never really placed her trust in Christ. After she came to saving faith in Christ she asked to be re-baptized as a believer.

Wonderful emotional story. However, I don’t get the same picture as you seem to be portraying. I see a teenager that was convicted to be Baptized. To me her conviction was the first step, it was not of her own doing, it was a work of God’s grace. In her first Baptism she was given the gift of the Holy Spirit. How do I know this? Because of your testimony. She didn’t walk away she participated in church, she was religious. This is that little mustard seed of faith growing in her. It’s right there for all the world to see. However, she let her emotions get in the way, the exact same way she did when she was a teenager. I’ll be honest never even heard of the “emotional experience” until I came to this forum. I don’t see it in the Bible, could you please point it out? What I am getting at is she had the emotional experience because she was taught that this is what happens to people that have “saving faith”. This is what people with a changed heart experience.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful to her (or disregard her experience), but to say her first baptism didn’t work, in spite of her remaining in church, being religious and showing a deeper faith as an adult, is being disrespectful to the work of the Holy Spirit.

As far as I am concerned she WAS “born anew” the first time she was baptized. The proof is in your words.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

baptism with the Holy Spirit does not occur in the same timing as baptism with water, yet that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit is not part of the water baptism ceremony.

We disagree on this point. The Apostles taught that the Holy Spirit baptizes through the water. We also acknowledge that the HS is not bound by the water (and He operates outside of it as He did with Cornelius) but that such an even it always paired with water baptism (as Peter ordered the house of C. to have immediately).

I am sure if you have personal experience with the Holy Spirit being active in a person prior to water baptism, you would not then declare that the subsequent water baptism was without spiritual meaning and devoid of the Holy Spirit.

I was blessed with a HS “baptism” before my confirmation class was completed, but we believe the Apostles taught that infants and children were to be baptized, and we don’t expect them to start speaking in tongues beforehand.

we are in agreement that the Holy Spirit can work outside of our timing of water baptism and also during water baptism.

Yes. Where we may differ is that we believe we have the promise ofGod that the HS will always work through baptism, as opposed to “may” work outside of it. This is the case through all the Sacraments. This is what we mean by “vehicles of grace”. God has promised to pour grace through them, though his grace is not bound by them.

Did Simon have a genuine conversion? If not, would he be expected to be Baptized anew?

This is a good question. The grace of the sacrament will operate fully when the recipient is fully cooperative with the grace that is poured forth. This may not happen immediately, or the person may fall from grace, then later return to grace. If a person does not return, the sacrament will not save them from their eternal punishment.

 

[rcwitness]

Ok, so this story reveals either one of two things. There is no Assurance of Salvation, or Simon’s belief was insufficient for salvation, and his Baptism was disingenuous.