Does Matthew 28:20 really guarantee that the early Christian Church would not go a stray?

[RebeccaJ]

I appreciate the explanation of the Cyprian/Novatian issue. But I must ask whether you are conflating the Cyprian/Novatian issue with the “baptism of the infirmed by pouring” issue. In Cyprian’s letter to his son Magnus (see newadvent.org/fathers/050675.htm) the Novatian issue is addressed, and then separately the issue of baptism of the infirmed by pouring is also addressed in section 12.

Also, you state that rejecting the baptism of the infirmed was something that wasn’t done before. However, part of Cyprian’s response was to say “In this point, my diffidence and modesty prejudges none, so as to prevent any from feeling what he thinks right, and from doing what he feels to be right” and also “I have replied, dearest son, to your letter, so far as my poor ability prevailed; and I have shown, as far as I could, what I think; prescribing to no one, so as to prevent any prelate from determining what he thinks right”. Would he really be saying that he was only expressing his opinion and that others have a right to their opinion if the practice were already established? He had very strong opinions regarding Novatian saying “Novatian neither ought to be nor can be expected, inasmuch as he also is without the Church and acting in opposition to the peace and love of Christ”.

In addition, on one occasion the issue arose as to whether one who had been sprinkled could receive the priesthood. Eusebius quoting Cornelius (Roman Bishop) stated “All the clergy and many of the laity resisted it, since it was not lawful that one baptized on his sick bed by aspersion, as he was, should be promoted into any order of the clergy”. (Eusebius,* Ecclesiastical History*, 6:266) Those who did accept sprinkling seemed to recognize that it did not carry the same weight as immersion.

Not conflating but putting your chosen quotes into historical context.

Perhaps it would help you, to understand that Bishops are autonomous, and act freely, in their communion with each other, to govern their flocks. As has already been explained, Immersion, pouring and sprinkling are all valid forms. Cyprian has the same understanding, and is conveying to a group in schism, that they are not forced to give up their practice.

You are enforcing an LDS understanding of baptism onto the text. Read Cyprian’s theological discourse on baptism. Hopefully you will then be able to understand the anachronism you’re trying to enforce onto history.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Right, there is nothing here that indicates affusion is illicit. Sprinkling is not the same as affusion. Aspersion, affusion and immersion are all legitimate, but the Roman Catholic Church most commonly uses affusion (pouring) not sprinkling.

Adults go down into the water to be baptized at my parish. And rise from it, and are baptized using affusion.

There is no evidence that the early Church was as particular as the Mormon practice. That is, that a piece of clothing or big toe breaking the surface requires re-baptism. The Mormon practice is not the practice of the early Church.

I was baptized in the front of the church by pouring. I have a certificate that says I was Baptized in water and in the Spirit. I choose to believe the Church’s judgment that is valid

 

[Stephen168]

Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles):

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

When I read the Didache requiring running/living water, it would seem less correct to immerse in a pool of water that is not living/running compared to baptism in a river or by pouring or even sprinkling.

 

[mtolympus]

Assertions are not evidence.

Immersion is legitimate as well as affusion. What evidence can you provide that affusion has not always (anciently)been understood as sufficient?

Philip met an Ethiopian eunuch traveling in his chariot when he requested Philip to join him to teach him about Jesus.

“As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, Look there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized? Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him.”(Acts 8:36-38)

Why would they both go down into the water if simply sprinkling or pouring would be sufficient?

Also, Paul pointed to the symbolism of baptism by immersion when he said, “Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death.” (Romans 6:3-4) (my emphasis)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Philip met an Ethiopian eunuch traveling in his chariot when he requested Philip to join him to teach him about Jesus.

“As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, Look there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized? Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him.”(Acts 8:36-38)

Why would they both go down into the water if simply sprinkling or pouring would be sufficient?

Also, Paul pointed to the symbolism of baptism by immersion when he said, “Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death.” (Romans 6:3-4) (my emphasis)

I don’t think you understand Catholic baptism. , as your argument here is a straw man.

That being said, there is no problem with what you are arguing, from a Catholic standpoint. That is, immersion is valid, and there is no reason for me to argue against it (which seems to be the LDS expectation).

But your argument that immersion alone is valid, seems Pharisaical, no?

We are not literally buried at baptism, if that were so then we would be buried in earth. Obviously then, being buried is a symbolic term. A symbol, in Catholic teaching represents a reality. The reality of Baptism is not changed by the amount of water used.

 

[Stephen168]

Doctrines and ordinances were changed over time and had to be restored.

Yes, the Mormon Church has changed many of its doctrines and ordinances since its founding by Joseph Smith. In fact, Mormon Doctrine is no longer Mormon Doctrine. Is there a need for its restoration?

 

[mtolympus]

I don’t think you understand Catholic baptism. , as your argument here is a straw man.

That being said, there is no problem with what you are arguing, from a Catholic standpoint. That is, immersion is valid, and there is no reason for me to argue against it (which seems to be the LDS expectation).

But your argument that immersion alone is valid, seems Pharisaical, no?

We are not literally buried at baptism, if that were so then we would be buried in earth. Obviously then, being buried is a symbolic term. A symbol, in Catholic teaching represents a reality. The reality of Baptism is not changed by the amount of water used.

No argument required. Just posting evidence for immersion baptism as requested.

 

[iepuras]

No argument required. Just posting evidence for immersion baptism as requested.

Those verses aren’t even entirely clear that Philip baptized the Ethiopian by immersion. Just that they both went into the water for the baptism. Philip and the Ethiopian could have both been standing in the water with Philip pouring water on the Ethiopian’s head. Or he could have baptized by immersion. It just isn’t perfectly clear.

When it comes to describing going to a natural body of water the terminology is “to go down”, probably because water runs down until it can’t go any lower. If someone were to baptize another in the closest body of water to my house, they would go down into the bayou and baptize. By immersion? Quite possibly since it has rained lately and it is quite full. But if the bayou was low, they could still go down into the bayou and stand in the water and baptize by pouring. Neither way is more valid than the other. And the method chosen can be entirely dependent on the weather or season, especially in the desert.

 

[gazelam]

Aspersion, affusion and immersion are all legitimate, but the Roman Catholic Church most commonly uses affusion (pouring) not sprinkling.

Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism

 

[Duane1966]

Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism

Says one baptism, meaning only baptized once. Makes no mention of method. Why doesn’t the bible command immersion? We know from the Didache that immersion is not the only way. Here is a link that shows an early Christian house church. This city was abandoned about the middle of the third century. Note the picture of the baptistry. Other ancient baptistries have also been found. Many of them, immersion was impossible. beliefnet.com/columnists/bibleandculture/2010/01/the-church-in-the-house-in-dura-europos.html

Here is a marvelous shot of the room in the church part of this house in Dura where baptisms were undertaken. You can see the font in the top left of this picture, and as MacMullen rightly points out, there could have been no immersing of persons here– unless we are talking infants! Only sprinkling or pouring took place here. This conclusion is reached not only because the font or tub is much too shallow for dunking, but also there is no evidence of there ever being pipes in or out of this tub. As the picture above indicates, they water would have been brought in in amphorae or jars. Note that this church is right next to the Euphrates so if the congregants or ministers had wanted to do baptism by immersion, all they had to do was go outside!
Read more at beliefnet.com/columnists/bibleandculture/2010/01/the-church-in-the-house-in-dura-europos.html#tEgv0prVh1ue1qJB.99

One last thing, many, many, scholars and geologists, say the Jordan was to shallow where Jesus was baptized for immersion.

It is also my understanding that Mark’s Gospel, in the Greek, does not indicate immersion.

 

[gazelam]

Says one baptism, meaning only baptized once. Makes no mention of method. Why doesn’t the bible command immersion?

From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible here: biblehub.com/ephesians/4-5.htm

One baptism, there were divers baptisms under the law, but there is but one baptism under the Gospel; for John’s and Christ’s are the same: there are, besides, figurative or metaphorical ones, which are so in an improper sense, as the baptism of the Spirit, and the baptism of blood, or of sufferings; but there is but one baptism, literally and properly so called, which is water baptism; and which is to be administered in one and the same way, by immersion in water; and on one and the same subjects, believers in Christ; and in one and the same name, the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and to be performed but once, when rightly administered.

 

[iepuras]

From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible here: biblehub.com/ephesians/4-5.htm

One baptism, there were divers baptisms under the law, but there is but one baptism under the Gospel; for John’s and Christ’s are the same: there are, besides, figurative or metaphorical ones, which are so in an improper sense, as the baptism of the Spirit, and the baptism of blood, or of sufferings; but there is but one baptism, literally and properly so called, which is water baptism; and which is to be administered in one and the same way, by immersion in water; and on one and the same subjects, believers in Christ; and in one and the same name, the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and to be performed but once, when rightly administered.

I don’t think you will convince many Catholics with Biblical commentary from a Baptist theologian.

 

[Stephen168]

Says one baptism, meaning only baptized once. Makes no mention of method. Why doesn’t the bible command immersion? We know from the Didache that immersion is not the only way.

I pointed that out in post #83. Mormons must ignore the Didache because it proves them wrong.

They must also ignore the fact that they are in an almost constant state of changing doctrine and practice, so the whole baptism changing claim is hypocrisy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No argument required. Just posting evidence for immersion baptism as requested.

But…you didn’t. You posted evidence for baptism.

As I said, I’m totally with you, defending baptism.

If you want to believe every time baptism is referenced, it is by immersion, Clearly, that is not in the text, but reflects your bias.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism

Yes, one baptism. Christians are baptized once. Each Sacrament has a matter and a form. The matter in baptism is water; the form is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Also, clearly explained in the Didache.)

Baptized once, using the same (one) matter and form. One baptism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are enforcing an LDS understanding of baptism onto the text. Read Cyprian’s theological discourse on baptism. Hopefully you will then be able to understand the anachronism you’re trying to enforce onto history.

I’m curious to know what Cyprian’s answer to the question was…

Blessings,

Rita

From St. Cyprian’s Epistle 75:

In the sacraments of salvation, when necessity compels, and God bestows His mercy, the divine methods confer the whole benefit on believers; nor ought it to trouble any one that sick people seem to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord’s grace, when Holy Scripture speaks by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, and says, *Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you. *Ezekiel 36:25-26 Also in Numbers: And the man that shall be unclean until the evening shall be purified on the third day, and on the seventh day shall be clean: but if he shall not be purified on the third day, on the seventh day he shall not be clean. And that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of sprinkling has not been sprinkled upon him. And again: And the Lord spoke unto Moses saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shall you do unto them, to cleanse them: you shall sprinkle them with the water of purification. Numbers 8:5-7 And again: *The water of sprinkling is a purification. *Numbers 19:9 Whence it appears that the sprinkling also of water prevails equally with the washing of salvation; and that when this is done in the Church, where the faith both of receiver and giver is sound, all things hold and may be consummated and perfected by the majesty of the Lord and by the truth of faith.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I pointed that out in post #83. Mormons must ignore the Didache because it proves them wrong.

They also must splice a paragraph or two out of the whole teachings of any Early Church Father, removing quotes from their historical and religious contexts. (Cobbling together a new history and new religion.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Those verses aren’t even entirely clear that Philip baptized the Ethiopian by immersion. Just that they both went into the water for the baptism. Philip and the Ethiopian could have both been standing in the water with Philip pouring water on the Ethiopian’s head. Or he could have baptized by immersion. It just isn’t perfectly clear.

When it comes to describing going to a natural body of water the terminology is “to go down”, probably because water runs down until it can’t go any lower. If someone were to baptize another in the closest body of water to my house, they would go down into the bayou and baptize. By immersion? Quite possibly since it has rained lately and it is quite full. But if the bayou was low, they could still go down into the bayou and stand in the water and baptize by pouring. Neither way is more valid than the other. And the method chosen can be entirely dependent on the weather or season, especially in the desert.

Agreed, the passage does not indicate immersion or pouring.

 

[mtolympus]

Those verses aren’t even entirely clear that Philip baptized the Ethiopian by immersion. Just that they both went into the water for the baptism. Philip and the Ethiopian could have both been standing in the water with Philip pouring water on the Ethiopian’s head. Or he could have baptized by immersion. It just isn’t perfectly clear.

I totally agree that it is not clear. If everything in the Bible was perfectly clear there would be no need for the restoration. However, the two men were traveling along and one decided he wanted to be baptized. If sprinkling or pouring were acceptable options, there would be no reason for Philip to even get wet.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I totally agree that it is not clear. If everything in the Bible was perfectly clear there would be no need for the restoration.

Not relevant to the subject or to Catholics. (We are not sola scriptura.)

However, the two men were traveling along and one decided he wanted to be baptized. If sprinkling or pouring were acceptable options, there would be no reason for Philip to even get wet.

Says who? Do you want guess and conjecture?

Because he chose to.
Because he wanted to.