God created all the matter in the universe. How could something made by Him limit Him?Itwin,
Can God wash away your sins by water or is His power frustrated by the liquid? Simple question.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Water alone can not cleanse us from our sins as shown by the baptism of John. But Christian Baptism does because it is with water and the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:5).Itwin,
Can God wash away your sins by water or is His power frustrated by the liquid? Simple question.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Surely not merely water but water with the Word and by the command of Christ. We believe that salvation comes by the water because Christ commands us to baptize for salvation.Itwin,
Can God wash away your sins by water or is His power frustrated by the liquid? Simple question.
Sincerely,
De Maria
For those interested, this question arises out of an earlier thread, If we are not justified in Baptism…Then Christ died in vain.Itwin,
Can God wash away your sins by water or is His power frustrated by the liquid? Simple question.
Sincerely,
De Maria
So you admit to disagreeing with and rejecting the true and only Church ever established by Christ and to which he gave authority in matters of faith and morals.For those interested, this question arises out of an earlier thread, If we are not justified in Baptism…Then Christ died in vain.
I don’t think I ever said or suggested that God was “frustrated by the liquid.” I’ve made my beliefs on baptism pretty clear in the thread linked above. I believe that God is all powerful. If he wants to regenerate us through baptism, he is certainly able to do that. That is not my theological understanding of baptism, however. I suppose that means that you consider me and other Christians like me a blasphemer because I deny the power of God in the sacrament, as you’ve stated in the first thread. All I can say in my defense is that I do not deny the power of God at all. I do however disagree with Catholic sacramental theology.
Having read through that thread–with the proviso that I may have missed or misunderstood some of what you said–I’d suggest that baptism, like all the sacraments, includes human, even physical elements appropriate to the grace being conferred. Water washes away dirt and cleanses the body–so in baptism it is a sign of God’s Spirit that washes away the stain and dirt of sin. It is not the water as such that washes away sin, but the sacrament, the context of the Church acting in the presence and at the command of God, that cleanses us.For those interested, this question arises out of an earlier thread, If we are not justified in Baptism…Then Christ died in vain.
I don’t think I ever said or suggested that God was “frustrated by the liquid.” I’ve made my beliefs on baptism pretty clear in the thread linked above. I believe that God is all powerful. If he wants to regenerate us through baptism, he is certainly able to do that. That is not my theological understanding of baptism, however. I suppose that means that you consider me and other Christians like me a blasphemer because I deny the power of God in the sacrament, as you’ve stated in the first thread. All I can say in my defense is that I do not deny the power of God at all. I do however disagree with Catholic sacramental theology.
The problem with separating the elements from the graces is that this speaks to the gnostic understanding of the Sacraments that is everywhere in the Church and out. The idea that the sign speaks to a higher truth rather than being the thing Christ said it is “spiritualizes” the element and so makes the spirit higher than the physical. Such an understanding, while well-meant, leads to some very difficult corners. It is better to confess simply that the elements are what Christ said they are and do what Christ said they do.Having read through that thread–with the proviso that I may have missed or misunderstood some of what you said–I’d suggest that baptism, like all the sacraments, includes human, even physical elements appropriate to the grace being conferred. Water washes away dirt and cleanses the body–so in baptism it is a sign of God’s Spirit that washes away the stain and dirt of sin. It is not the water as such that washes away sin, but the sacrament, the context of the Church acting in the presence and at the command of God, that cleanses us.
I’d also add that water in baptism–like the use of bread and wine in Eucharist, oil in various sacraments, and so on–reaffirms the Catholic understanding that we are not saved as disembodied spirits. As the body, spirit and soul were all involved in sin, so all are involved in redemption.
Absolutely! And beautifully put. If God has spiritualized the water of Baptism with a word from Him, why do we doubt? It is beautifully put in the book of Acts:The problem with separating the elements from the graces is that this speaks to the gnostic understanding of the Sacraments that is everywhere in the Church and out. The idea that the sign speaks to a higher truth rather than being the thing Christ said it is “spiritualizes” the element and so makes the spirit higher than the physical. Such an understanding, while well-meant, leads to some very difficult corners. It is better to confess simply that the elements are what Christ said they are and do what Christ said they do.
That is to believe simply as the child does which is our Lord’s command.
God Bless
Thanks for mentioning that.For those interested, this question arises out of an earlier thread, If we are not justified in Baptism…Then Christ died in vain.
Not as clear as you think. That’s the purpose of this thread. To clarify it further. And to correct what I perceive is an error in your theology.I don’t think I ever said or suggested that God was “frustrated by the liquid.” I’ve made my beliefs on baptism pretty clear in the thread linked above.
Agreed.I believe that God is all powerful.
And He has done that. As the Scripture says:If he wants to regenerate us through baptism, he is certainly able to do that.
If you denied that He could, you would be a blasphemer. Here is the exact quote of my words:That is not my theological understanding of baptism, however. I suppose that means that you consider me and other Christians like me a blasphemer because I deny the power of God in the sacrament, as you’ve stated in the first thread.
On what basis? Simply because you don’t want God to tie salvation to water? Have you ever heard the saying, “don’t lean upon your own understanding”? Has God put you over His doctrines in order that you are considered the infallible interpreter of His Word?All I can say in my defense is that I do not deny the power of God at all. I do however disagree with Catholic sacramental theology.
Can we baptize without water? Here’s what I say, correct me if I’m wrong:God can remove our sins any way He wishes. He chose to use baptism as a means. But its not the water that cleanses us, its by the power of the Holy Spirit that does the cleansing.
Absolutely! My challenge was meant for a fellow, Itwin, who denies the efficacy of Baptism because of the use of water to convey grace.God created all the matter in the universe. How could something made by Him limit Him?
Grace is conferred by the Sacraments through the use of physical signs. We wouldn’t make use of them if we believed God “couldn’t” use matter of His own making to give us grace.
I think you and I are saying the same thing. The only difference is, I would have said, “effectual sign”. In other words, you said:Water alone can not cleanse us from our sins as shown by the baptism of John. But Christian Baptism does because it is with water and the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:5).
The water is an outward sign of an unseen reality. A sacrament is defined as a visible sign that conveys an actual grace. So the water is symbolic or cleansing imagery of what God is actually doing. It is a visible reminder of God’s forgivenes. See 1 Pt 3:21.
The water does not frustrate. It is simply a means. Baptism with water is the normal means we are saved and experience the forgiveness through the blood of Christ. God is not bound by Baptism. But we are if we are able to be bapized since it is the method that God has chosen to use through His church. His church is physical so it makes sense He would institute the sacraments as being physical signs of a spiritual reality.
“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.”
- Ezek 36:25
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 694 (578 bytes ) preview document matchesAbsolutely correct. May God bless you as well!Surely not merely water but water with the Word and by the command of Christ. We believe that salvation comes by the water because Christ commands us to baptize for salvation.
God Bless
But rather than separate out the elements from the graces, it is the elements that are included in the ritual that confers or effects the grace, through God’s power. Indeed, properly understood, it does not denigrate or lower the physical elements–it unites them into the whole. That’s why it is a visible sign of an invisible reality–not higher and lower, but all part of the human experience.The problem with separating the elements from the graces is that this speaks to the gnostic understanding of the Sacraments that is everywhere in the Church and out. The idea that the sign speaks to a higher truth rather than being the thing Christ said it is “spiritualizes” the element and so makes the spirit higher than the physical. Such an understanding, while well-meant, leads to some very difficult corners. It is better to confess simply that the elements are what Christ said they are and do what Christ said they do.
That is to believe simply as the child does which is our Lord’s command.
God Bless
You bring up an interesting point here De Maria. I think the discussion can be broke down to (1) whether the sacraments are merely outward signs of an invisible reality i.e. the conferring of grace or (2) whether the sacraments are both outward signs of the conferring of grace and causes of grace.Can we baptize without water? Here’s what I say, correct me if I’m wrong:
It is not, “In Baptism, water is the sign of what the Spirit does”. It is that “in Baptism, water is the effectual sign which signifies and produces what the spirit does.”
To compare, if a man claims that he has been baptized by the Holy Spirit because he claims this happens by “faith alone”, this may or may not be true. Scripture says the Spirit blows where it will.
But, if a man claims that he has been baptized by the Holy Spirit when he was baptized in the Sacrament of the Catholic Church, then this is true. Because Christ has tied the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, to the pouring of the water and proclamation of the word.
The Church says it this way:
1238 The baptismal water is consecrated by a prayer of epiclesis (either at this moment or at the Easter Vigil). The Church asks God that through his Son the power of the Holy Spirit may be sent upon the water, so that those who will be baptized in it may be "born of water and the Spirit."40
What do yo think?
Sincerely,
De Maria
More like a blowtorch.Itwin,
Can God wash away your sins by water or is His power frustrated by the liquid? Simple question.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Scripture says, more like a Tsunami:More like a blowtorch.
What I was saying is that Augustine’s distinction of the sign and thing signified is unhelpful because it draws the line in the first place. I was not saying that you personally denigrate the elements but rather that any distinction at all is harmful. Do you know who the Calvinist’s argue to support their position that baptism does not save but is merely a sign of salvation already given to the elect? That’s right its Augustine.But rather than separate out the elements from the graces, it is the elements that are included in the ritual that confers or effects the grace, through God’s power. Indeed, properly understood, it does not denigrate or lower the physical elements–it unites them into the whole. That’s why it is a visible sign of an invisible reality–not higher and lower, but all part of the human experience.
Note that I never included the idea of higher and lower–if anything, even your reply suggests that you think in those terms. Rather, I suggested in the final paragraph that the sacraments reunite the human–not body and spirit being divided one from the other, but all working together for good.
I do see us as basically agreeing, even if we use different terminology, and have different concerns we are wary of. I am wary of separating the human into physical body, mental spirit, and spiritual soul; you seem to be wary of higher spiritual reality vs. lower bodily reality.