How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[inkaneer]

Thank-you .I could be nit-picky and say not very Father wrote one way or another on it ,Certainly the first hundred years gave us nothing more than what is in scripture, and scripture is purposely “all over the place” on this. Paul says, " I am glad I did not baptize any of you ,but preached Christ crucified ,the power to save you" something like that. Justin Martyr , “He who is illumined is washed” Tit for tat- Barnabus (100AD) #21- Father wrote, “It is well that we who have learned the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written,should walk in them”. “Meditate how to save a soul by the Word.” Anyways ,each on it’s own merits and fascinating.

But did they specifically deny baptismal regeneration? Silence on a question only proves that they made no comment. It does not mean they disagreed. Now quote one early church writer who disagreed with baptismal regeneration. You can’t. One thing about these early church writers- well, two things actually. First they were, for the most part, Catholic Bishops and second they were very passionate in defence of true doctrine. If Baptismal regeneration was not apostolic teaching there would be an avalanche of writers condemning the very thought. But you don’t find that. There is not a whisper that baptismal regeneration is a false doctrine. The Great Augustine summed it up in his writing called, Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants when he wrote:

“The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (2:27:43).

 

[david_ruiz]

But did they specifically deny baptismal regeneration? Silence on a question only proves that they made no comment. It does not mean they disagreed. Now quote one early church writer who disagreed with baptismal regeneration. You can’t. One thing about these early church writers- well, two things actually. First they were, for the most part, Catholic Bishops and second they were very passionate in defence of true doctrine. If Baptismal regeneration was not apostolic teaching there would be an avalanche of writers condemning the very thought. But you don’t find that. There is not a whisper that baptismal regeneration is a false doctrine. The Great Augustine summed it up in his writing called, Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants when he wrote:

“The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (2:27:43).

Yes, yes, yes, silence proves nothing .My friend someone wrote ,“every single Early Church Father believed in baptismal regeneration” If one is silent on it I would not presume on them a doctrine/practice. I am sure people were baptized right away once they believed. The two were closely linked time wise. You did not believe and then wait a year or two then get baptized. More often they were baptized what, within the week, the day , the hour ? The two were almost synonomous because of timing . With the public confession of baptism , salvation is made sure, “for with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” “For scripture saith, whoever shall believe on him shall not be ashamed.” “And with the heart man believeth unto righteousness”, Romans 10. This was the scenario in the first church and hence any father writings could easily talk of salvation, regeneration , washing of sins, baptism (public confession in water, baptism in the Holy Ghost) almost in the same breath. I would still be careful to make the right discernment as to just how this “wind” operates vs. how it seems to operate. Another fact is that people first come to believe, that is a faith unto salvation first, then are water baptized. Some are even baptized in the Holy Ghost first, then are water baptized. It makes no sense to me that one can believe, or have the infilling of the Holy ghost and still be unregenerate ,dead in your sins(cause of no water baptism yet). The bible says in ourselves we can do nothing and our righteousness is as dung, so how can this fleshly man believe when his heart is still stone ? Regeneration means the Spirit gives you this new heart of faith, so that you can believe. Yet you are saying you can believe before regeneration, before water baptism. For certainly you do not baptize unbelievers . Isn’t that one of the requirements, that you first believe that Jesus is Lord and Messiah ? I do not hear people testifying saying , “Lord I believe that once I am water baptized , then I’ll believe you died for my sins”. As far as Augustine, from His Confessions, I think he was regenerated , came to believe, then was baptized .This all took place as an adult. I have known to many people from all churches who have experienced religious rites, including water baptism, and yet were definitely not regenerated. I have known too many people that were regenerated, before any water baptism. What else could Jesus have meant when scripture says He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire ? A religious rite is not always effectual . OT circumcision is our teacher . If I loved God and in the old testament I definitely would become circumcised . However, the cutting of skin did not automatically make everyone regenerated. Because of free will and choice, somewhere reality must show whether the symbolic rite is indeed genuine, and of the new heart.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Yes I recognize that…but Shiite and Sunni have basically been around since nearly the very beginning…and last I checked, Christianity is not unified either.

Islam came after Christianity. And Christianity is unified. There is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in unity with the Holy Family (it being the body of Christ after all), and then there are schismatics who reject the Church (ie protestants/jews/muslims/non denoms/atheists/agnostics/everything else). Now I’m not saying I feel our protestant brethren are not Christian despite my previous statement, but ultimately the Catholic Church “is” Christianity because that is the way Christ made it. The Bible, a Catholic invention (guided by the Holy Spirit) has been changed countless times by non catholics to reinforce their made up belief system/theology. They are not in communion with what Christ taught.

So I would make the argument that Christianity is in fact united. You either stand with it (Christ’s Catholic Church) or against it.

 

[david_ruiz]

JonathonofOhio;9235529:

That his teaching was not in accord with that of the church which Jesus said would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit and the same church that Jesus said He would remain with until the end of the age. Now, are Jesus and the scriptures lying???

He is not lying and indeed guiding His church .Do you think we are better than the old testament chosen ? They were in captivity 400 years, and in the wilderness fro 40 years to take what should have been a two week trek. Were they not His Chosen, under His guidance and care ? The church can have lapses ,because of free will, and He knows what He is doing. Corrective actions have been taken time and time again. His church, not yours or mine, is prevailing and growing.

 

[david_ruiz]

Infallibility was a gift given by Christ to his closest disciples, his inner circle, the 12 Apostles.

Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. (Matthew 12:11)

-Tim-

Poor quote the “them” are non-believers not laity

 

[JonathonofOhio]

So is Peter like the mayor and the other apostles heroes/celebrities ?

No, you missed the point. I was only pointing out the historical support for the Catholic interpretation of the symbolic meaning behind handing over of keys to someone and how that history carries over even to this day.

The others did the same things of loosening /binding or remitting/retaining sins,

No, they did not all bind and loose – forgiveness of sins and binding/loosening are referring to two things. Jesus gave them all the command that who’s sins they forgive/not forgive are forgiven/not forgiven, but only directly to Peter did he give the keys and power to bind/loosen. The bind/and loosen is referring to infallibility, something that come from the Holy Spirit.

Peter spoke infallibly in Acts 15 about the matter brought before them. James then confirms it’s infallible (the truth) and shows everyone (from scripture/history) why. If anyone from that point on taught differently, they were not in communion with the church, because they were not preaching the truth.

Mark 28:1 says “All authority is given me in heaven AND EARTH, go therefore and teach all nations baptizing them, ,teaching them what I command you,…I am with you …” Is a Vicar needed here ? A prime minister ?

Yes, as a matter of fact a vicar is needed, otherwise Jesus would not have had a need to appoint anyone, not even the apostles to their positions. He would have just wrote a book and handed it out to everyone and said, “here, read this, everything you need to know is in there.” No ‘keys’ were given to anyone but Peter.

Do we need to interpret a human form to this promised Vicar of Christ himself and the Holy Ghost ?

God came to us as a man-- as Jesus the Christ, and appointed men to leadership roles in His Holy Church, and to preach the good news. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth (not deceit) speaks through the men of His Church (this is part of having faith in Jesus, to believe all of his promises, and one was that he would send his Holy Church the Holy Spirit so that the Truth would always be with Her). So, yes, we need good men, good stewards, who are entrusted with the truth by God to teach us and to guide us, so that we don’t fall victim to Satan and all his lying and deceitful ways.

(Yes Peter was a leader ,but because he was a leader, not because of more authority)
A parable depicts the owners son as being sent to the owners vineyard for payment. This parallels Isaiah 22. You don’t think the father “deputized” the Son ? Jesus is both prime minister and king , He is all . I do not think His first visit to us was as "king of kings’ , yet He is and shall be.

Prime minister might be fine given the role of a prime minister, but I believe it would be more accurate to call Peter a steward.

Jesus appointed Peter to be a steward (vicar), and he had the responsibility of overseeing the flock. In a monarch, a steward was an official who was appointed by the legal ruling monarch to represent him or her in a country, and may have a mandate to govern it in his or her name; in the latter case, it roughly corresponds with the position of governor or deputy (the Roman rector, praefectus or vicarius [root and origin of the English word “vicar”]). It was also a term used to refer to the chief servant of a landed estate.

A steward (as vicar/chief steward) doesn’t do anything on his own, but whatever the King commanded him to do, and he has authority over other servants and stewards and has the responsibility of taking care of all that belongs to the king (we belong to the King, and so the vicar, the stewards, and the servants take care of us). While the king is away (at the right hand of the Father), the vicar, the stewards, and servants tend to the flock until the King returns, and the vicar overseas it all. We are all called to be servants, and stewards and some have been called to be vicar, but all are called by the Holy Spirit. Some are given more responsibilities and some less, but all are appointed by the Holy Spirit. Whoever is given more responsibility, more is expected of him (Luke 12:48).

BTW, Matthew 20:8-16, and it is the steward that pays the laborers, carrying out his masters wishes, tending to the vineyard. They complain about the owner because he had his steward pay people who came later a full days wage, the same as those who worked all day. There are lessons in there, but this is long enough so I won’t elaborate on it.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

He is not lying and indeed guiding His church .Do you think we are better than the old testament chosen ? They were in captivity 400 years, and in the wilderness fro 40 years to take what should have been a two week trek. Were they not His Chosen, under His guidance and care ? The church can have lapses ,because of free will, and He knows what He is doing. Corrective actions have been taken time and time again. His church, not yours or mine, is prevailing and growing.

Your post, David, says it’s a quote from me, but it’s obviously just messed up. That is not a quote from me and I have no idea what you are referring to there. I never typed any of that. You probably just have a quote within a quote block in there.

 

[inkaneer]

Yes, yes, yes, silence proves nothing .My friend someone wrote ,“every single Early Church Father believed in baptismal regeneration” If one is silent on it I would not presume on them a doctrine/practice. With the public confession of baptism , salvation is made sure, “for with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” “For scripture saith, whoever shall believe on him shall not be ashamed.” “And with the heart man believeth unto righteousness”, Romans 10. This was the scenario in the first church and hence any father writings could easily talk of salvation, regeneration , washing of sins, baptism (public confession in water, baptism in the Holy Ghost) almost in the same breath. I would still be careful to make the right discernment as to just how this “wind” operates vs. how it seems to operate. Another fact is that people first come to believe, that is a faith unto salvation first, then are water baptized. Some are even baptized in the Holy Ghost first, then are water baptized. It makes no sense to me that one can believe, or have the infilling of the Holy ghost and still be unregenerate ,dead in your sins(cause of no water baptism yet). The bible says in ourselves we can do nothing and our righteousness is as dung, so how can this fleshly man believe when his heart is still stone ? Regeneration means the Spirit gives you this new heart of faith, so that you can believe. Yet you are saying you can believe before regeneration, before water baptism. For certainly you do not baptize unbelievers . Isn’t that one of the requirements, that you first believe that Jesus is Lord and Messiah ? I do not hear people testifying saying , “Lord I believe that once I am water baptized , then I’ll believe you died for my sins”. As far as Augustine, from His Confessions, I think he was regenerated , came to believe, then was baptized .This all took place as an adult. I have known to many people from all churches who have experienced religious rites, including water baptism, and yet were definitely not regenerated. I have known too many people that were regenerated, before any water baptism. What else could Jesus have meant when scripture says He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire ? A religious rite is not always effectual . OT circumcision is our teacher . If I loved God and in the old testament I definitely would become circumcised . However, the cutting of skin did not automatically make everyone regenerated. Because of free will and choice, somewhere reality must show whether the symbolic rite is indeed genuine, and of the new heart.

I would beg to differ with you. You wrote:

“I am sure people were baptized right away once they believed. The two were closely linked time wise. You did not believe and then wait a year or two then get baptized. More often they were baptized what, within the week, the day , the hour ? The two were almost synonomous because of timing.”

But the evidence for that is lacking. Converts to the early church spent a long time as ‘catechumens’ before they were baptized. Usually they were baptized and gained entry into the church at the Easter celebtations. Before that occurred the catechumens were not permitted to participate in the complete liturgy and were escorted out of the church before the Consecration. Augustine alludes to this in his On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21

"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . .

This practice is continued to this day in the RCIA courses as converts to Catholicism are given an intensive instruction in Catholic doctrine and then brought into full fellowship in the Church at the Easter celebration. The only difference is that today most converts have already received trinitarian baptism in their former denomination and thus have no need to be baptized again. However there are those who have not received the sacrament or those whose baptism was not valid [not trinitarian baptism]. These receive the sacrament of Baptism.

Regarding cicumcision you wrote:

“OT circumcision is our teacher . If I loved God and in the old testament I definitely would become circumcised . However, the cutting of skin did not automatically make everyone regenerated. Because of free will and choice, somewhere reality must show whether the symbolic rite is indeed genuine, and of the new heart.”

Babies were circumcised on the eighth day. There was no regeneration associated with it because there was no remission of sin. What circumcision did do was identify one as being one of God’s chosen people. In the New Testament Baptism was seen as the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision as baptism also identified one as a member of God’s chosen people [the church]. Paul, speaking of Baptism would call it the circumcision made without hands. But whereas circumcision was the imperfect foreshadowing of the New Testament Baptism because there was no remission of sin and therefore no regeneration all that changed in the New Covenant with Baptism.

 

[fhansen]

If infallibility* isn’t* passed down then we all may as well pack it in and go home; there’s no way to know the gospel if left to the understanding of individuals, based on their interpretation of scripture, who go on to create new churches that often disagree with other churches created by other individuals who’ve done the same thing.

 

[onemangang]

If infallibility* isn’t* passed down then we all may as well pack it in and go home; there’s no way to know the gospel if left to the understanding of individuals, based on their interpretation of scripture, who go on to create new churches that often disagree with other churches created by other individuals who’ve done the same thing.

I would like to add, if we are incapable of recognizing, or discerning infallibility, then we all may as well pack it in and go home.

I would love to see somebody, anybody, that is non-catholic, provide an reasonable epistemology that can account for infallibility? I feel that I have done my best to provide one, and haven’t seen even a glimpse of a non-catholic one, on this entire thread.

How do we know infallibility gets passed down? N0n-catholic answer = we cant account for that, we don’t know, or it doesn’t exist!

Provide a reason other than “No-Catholic Church” or move on, this thread has gone nowhere for far too long (smh)

 

[david_ruiz]

I would beg to differ with you. You wrote:

“I am sure people were baptized right away once they believed. The two were closely linked time wise. You did not believe and then wait a year or two then get baptized. More often they were baptized what, within the week, the day , the hour ? The two were almost synonomous because of timing.”

But the evidence for that is lacking. Converts to the early church spent a long time as ‘catechumens’ before they were baptized. Usually they were baptized and gained entry into the church at the Easter celebtations. Before that occurred the catechumens were not permitted to participate in the complete liturgy and were escorted out of the church before the Consecration. Augustine alludes to this in his On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21

Actually evidence is lacking for a catechumen system in the first two hundred years .Perhaps we need to specify the dates we are talking about. I absolutely agree with you at at some point , 3-5 century, catechumens developed. In fact the earliest churches had two parts for that reason . Remember few churches I think were built before Constantine because of persecution . I suppose afterwards they boomed. This practice of two parts or even two churches, because of catechumens, ceased when infant baptism became prevalent. Augustine’s letters suggest many did not agree with infant baptism , hence his letters, ,and not to heretics but to the christain community . I would agree Augustine carried the day and eventually infant baptism became the norm. Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose,Chrysostom, Basil, Rufinus were baptized as adults and I think they had Christian parents ,(I know Augustine’s mother was a very devout christian) …Anyways ,my reference to immediate baptism was in reference to biblical /apostolic times, as in Acts, taking us almost up to 100 AD. I do not know of any extended catechumen “time” in the book of Acts. Most were baptized within the day,and the only evidence is scripture. For sure later (300’s) cathechumens was norm, as you pointed out .Totally agreed that catechumens could only participate in mass up to consecration, then had to be escorted out (again churches were built with this in mind so as not too disrupt service). The catechumen practice was also popular because the ease of sin cleansing in baptism vs afterwards with confession ,sometimes public ,of ones sins. Also to ease the pressures of adolescence and purity ,kind of let them sow their wild oats first ,get it out of their system, before taking on the rigors of a holy christian life, Sounds crazy to us today ,but this was part ,not all, but part of the baptism picture in 4-5 century , according to historians.
"

The only difference is that today most converts have already received trinitarian baptism in their former denomination and thus have no need to be baptized again

. This is due to Pope Stephen (250) who argued that the Spirit can not be received outside the Church but baptism is for forgiveness of sins but does not communicate the Spirit (as in regeneration). Obviously this premise was later abandoned (don’t know when in church history ) but the decree stands that other church baptisms stand, count and need not be repeated.

Babies were circumcised on the eighth day. There was no regeneration associated with it because there was no remission of sin. What circumcision did do was identify one as being one of God’s chosen people. In the New Testament Baptism was seen as the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision as baptism also identified one as a member of God’s chosen people [the church]. Paul, speaking of Baptism would call it the circumcision made without hands. But whereas circumcision was the imperfect foreshadowing of the New Testament Baptism because there was no remission of sin and therefore no regeneration all that changed in the New Covenant with Baptism

. Agreed but there is the baptism of the Spirit that circumcises our heart ,I would not say it is water baptism. I would agree that water baptism is the external new covenant sign, the putting off of flesh , actually mortified with Christ.

 

[inkaneer]

Actually evidence is lacking for a catechumen system in the first two hundred years .Perhaps we need to specify the dates we are talking about. I absolutely agree with you at at some point , 3-5 century, catechumens developed. In fact the earliest churches had two parts for that reason . Remember few churches I think were built before Constantine because of persecution . I suppose afterwards they boomed. This practice of two parts or even two churches, because of catechumens, ceased when infant baptism became prevalent. Augustine’s letters suggest many did not agree with infant baptism , hence his letters, ,and not to heretics but to the christain community . I would agree Augustine carried the day and eventually infant baptism became the norm. Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose,Chrysostom, Basil, Rufinus were baptized as adults and I think they had Christian parents ,(I know Augustine’s mother was a very devout christian) …Anyways ,my reference to immediate baptism was in reference to biblical /apostolic times, as in Acts, taking us almost up to 100 AD. I do not know of any extended catechumen “time” in the book of Acts. Most were baptized within the day,and the only evidence is scripture. For sure later (300’s) cathechumens was norm, as you pointed out .Totally agreed that catechumens could only participate in mass up to consecration, then had to be escorted out (again churches were built with this in mind so as not too disrupt service). The catechumen practice was also popular because the ease of sin cleansing in baptism vs afterwards with confession ,sometimes public ,of ones sins. Also to ease the pressures of adolescence and purity ,kind of let them sow their wild oats first ,get it out of their system, before taking on the rigors of a holy christian life, Sounds crazy to us today ,but this was part ,not all, but part of the baptism picture in 4-5 century , according to historians.’

Well again I would disagree with you. While the form of instruction did change after the persecutions ended there was an active instruction albeit different for Jews and Gentiles. For instance in the second century Tertullian writes against the heretics about disregarding instruction. He says that among the heretics one does not know which is the catechumen and which the faithful, all alike come [to the mysteries], all hear the same discourses and say the same prayers" He is referring to the fact that, in the church catechumens, can only participate in the first part of the Mass and must leave before the recitation of the creed. But that is not required by the heretics. A little later we read of Origen being in charge of the catechetical school at Alexandria (Euseb., Hist., Eccl., VI, iii). In deed in Galatians 6:6 we see the use of the Greek form of the words, catechumen and catechist:

"6Let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches.
[Galatians 6:6 RSV]

" . This is due to Pope Stephen (250) who argued that the Spirit can not be received outside the Church but baptism is for forgiveness of sins but does not communicate the Spirit (as in regeneration). Obviously this premise was later abandoned (don’t know when in church history ) but the decree stands that other church baptisms stand, count and need not be repeated.

Are you sure about that? Little is know about Pope Stephen I as he was pope during a period of persecution and he, hinself, died a martyr. His pontificate is know for the schism regarding the ‘lapsed’ christians. Those were people who denied their faith to protect their lives. Other argued they had to be rebaptized to rejoin the church but Stephen said no their original baptism was not rendered null and void. I can’t find anything on him about what you write. What is your source?

Agreed but there is the baptism of the Spirit that circumcises our heart ,I would not say it is water baptism. I would agree that water baptism is the external new covenant sign, the putting off of flesh , actually mortified with Christ.

In Trinitarian baptism when one is baptized it is with water and the Spirit. In Acts we see the story of those who were baptized but upon whom the Spirit had not come. Peter and John laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. This is the sacrament of Confirmation. On Pentecost the Apostles received a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit. One can only conclude that one can receive the Spirit in different degrees. as, obviously, not everyone receives the same gifts of the Spirit.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but I want to make some points anyway:

Actually evidence is lacking for a catechumen system in the first two hundred years .

A lack of evidence is not proof of the contrary. However, I don’t know if it would make much sense to assume such a system would have been put into place so early on, but there was obviously people teaching others how to interpret the scriptures. They were not just handed a book or a stack of papers and told to start interpreting it for themselves. The modern church hierarchy was established by the end of the 1st century or very early 2nd century, but even early on evidence suggests that there were different levels of authority and responsibility.

Remember few churches I think were built before Constantine because of persecution.

We know from archeological evidence that the early church (1st century) was established rather quickly in Rome, and that they practiced communion and baptism rather openly in public. Christians were not persecuted heavily in Rome at first, and they did build monuments and converted homes into places of worship. People were donating things to the church rather early on, most of which were possessions and money to help feed the poor. But the majority of people were of lower to middle class so the church wouldn’t have had a lot of money to be able to build buildings, and they didn’t have the pull to get permission to do so. I’m not sure how the lack of building structures is proof of anything, but that’s my 2 cents.

…ceased when infant baptism became prevalent. Augustine’s letters suggest many did not agree with infant baptism , hence his letters, ,and not to heretics but to the christain community.

Infant Baptism was always prevalent. Origen testified that it was handed down to them from the Apostles: “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants” - Origen (in cap. vi, Ep. ad Rom.). I doubt he lied about that.

Death was brought into the world by sin. We are all born into sin. An infant is not immune to death even though they have not committed any personal sin. Baptism is a participation in Christ’s passion, we a buried with him and are joined to him and receive the promise of eternal life (Romans 6). Therefore, an infant also can and does receive the same promise as an adult.

The catechumen practice was also popular because the ease of sin cleansing in baptism vs afterwards with confession ,sometimes public ,of ones sins. Also to ease the pressures of adolescence and purity ,kind of let them sow their wild oats first ,get it out of their system, before taking on the rigors of a holy christian life, Sounds crazy to us today ,but this was part ,not all, but part of the baptism picture in 4-5 century , according to historians.

I don’t think that is true as the Church never has condoned anyone to sin to ‘get it out of their system’. The process was setup to educate adults about the faith prior to accepting it. Infants are baptized and those raised in the church, receive the sacraments as they grow up.

This is due to Pope Stephen (250) who argued that the Spirit can not be received outside the Church but baptism is for forgiveness of sins but does not communicate the Spirit (as in regeneration). Obviously this premise was later abandoned (don’t know when in church history ) but the decree stands that other church baptisms stand, count and need not be repeated.

It was not later abandoned, because I don’t think it was ever accepted as an infallible teaching, and some of these things are only attributed to Pope Stephen, which means it’s not 100% known that it was him that actually wrote it. According to newadvent.org, it is said that he also made a statement declaring wine to be a valid matter of baptism, but the document is void of all authority (Labbe, Conc., VI).

Agreed but there is the baptism of the Spirit that circumcises our heart, I would not say it is water baptism. I would agree that water baptism is the external new covenant sign, the putting off of flesh , actually mortified with Christ.

It is an outward sign of an inward Grace. Your heart is not changed at Baptism, because it was already changed when you first believed. You are not baptized to prove this, you are baptized because you are ready to receive the Grace from God (made possible through faith) that is provided in baptism, the same Grace that an infant receives who has parents that have faith in Jesus Christ and all that he promises.

For a complete article on what we believe vs protestants along with supporting bible passages, see the following article:

catholic.com/tracts/baptismal-grace

 

[david_ruiz]

Well again I would disagree with you. While the form of instruction did change after the persecutions ended there was an active instruction albeit different for Jews and Gentiles. For instance in the second century Tertullian writes against the heretics about disregarding instruction. He says that among the heretics one does not know which is the catechumen and which the faithful, all alike come [to the mysteries], all hear the same discourses and say the same prayers" He is referring to the fact that, in the church catechumens, can only participate in the first part of the Mass and must leave before the recitation of the creed. But that is not required by the heretics. A little later we read of Origen being in charge of the catechetical school at Alexandria (Euseb., Hist., Eccl., VI, iii). In deed in Galatians 6:6 we see the use of the Greek form of the words, catechumen and catechist:

"6Let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches.
[Galatians 6:6 RSV]

I guess we have to define what is s catechumen. Is it a believer, or is it one inquiring, learning, but yet not a beleiver ?

Are you sure about that? Little is know about Pope Stephen I as he was pope during a period of persecution and he, hinself, died a martyr. His pontificate is know for the schism regarding the ‘lapsed’ christians. Those were people who denied their faith to protect their lives. Other argued they had to be rebaptized to rejoin the church but Stephen said no their original baptism was not rendered null and void. I can’t find anything on him about what you write. What is your source?

The Lives of Popes by Michael J. Walsh

In Trinitarian baptism when one is baptized it is with water and the Spirit. In Acts we see the story of those who were baptized but upon whom the Spirit had not come. Peter and John laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. This is the sacrament of Confirmation. On Pentecost the Apostles received a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit. One can only conclude that one can receive the Spirit in different degrees. as, obviously, not everyone receives the same gifts of the Spirit.

Again ,many receive the Spirit before any baptism of water. Whatever the apostles received on Pentecost ,the gentiles also received, according to Peter.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Again ,many receive the Spirit before any baptism of water. Whatever the apostles received on Pentecost ,the gentiles also received, according to Peter.

Which passage(s) say this? I know it says that the Gentiles received the same Word of God, but I don’t recall a passage that mentions any unbaptized gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit.

• In Acts 2:38 Peter says “be baptize and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
• Right after telling Nicodemus that no one can enter the kingdom unless they are born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5), we read in John 3:22, “After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.” (he baptized the Apostles). Later, at Pentecost they received the Holy Spirit. He also had the apostles baptize others, but it is not mentioned that anyone received the Holy Spirit until after Jesus ascends into heaven. Jesus even tells them that the Holy Spirit can’t come until he ascends. One seems to always come before the other.
• When Jesus was baptized, he was first baptized in water, and then the heavens opened and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, which suggests the order: first baptism then the Holy Spirit comes.

I know my responses don’t matter to you, but for anyone else reading this thread, perhaps it will benefit them.

 

[david_ruiz]

Which passage(s) say this? I know it says that the Gentiles received the same Word of God, but I don’t recall a passage that mentions any unbaptized gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit.

• In Acts 2:38 Peter says “be baptize and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
• Right after telling Nicodemus that no one can enter the kingdom unless they are born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5), we read in John 3:22, “After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.” (he baptized the Apostles). Later, at Pentecost they received the Holy Spirit. He also had the apostles baptize others, but it is not mentioned that anyone received the Holy Spirit until after Jesus ascends into heaven. Jesus even tells them that the Holy Spirit can’t come until he ascends. One seems to always come before the other.
• When Jesus was baptized, he was first baptized in water, and then the heavens opened and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, which suggests the order: first baptism then the Holy Spirit comes.

I know my responses don’t matter to you, but for anyone else reading this thread, perhaps it will benefit them.

Quickly but I think if you read where the gentile family that Peter preached to (Cornelius?) the spirit fell on them while he preached (book of Acts)and again at the Jerusalem council Peter says that they(gentiles) recieved “same as us” or something to that effect .thanks

 

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by inkaneer
Well again I would disagree with you. While the form of instruction did change after the persecutions ended there was an active instruction albeit different for Jews and Gentiles. For instance in the second century Tertullian writes against the heretics about disregarding instruction. He says that among the heretics one does not know which is the catechumen and which the faithful, all alike come [to the mysteries], all hear the same discourses and say the same prayers" He is referring to the fact that, in the church catechumens, can only participate in the first part of the Mass and must leave before the recitation of the creed. But that is not required by the heretics. A little later we read of Origen being in charge of the catechetical school at Alexandria (Euseb., Hist., Eccl., VI, iii). In deed in Galatians 6:6 we see the use of the Greek form of the words, catechumen and catechist:

"6Let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches.
[Galatians 6:6 RSV]

I guess we have to define what is s catechumen. Is it a believer, or is it one inquiring, learning, but yet not a beleiver ?

A catechumen is one undergoing catechesis [learning the faith] He is a believer who is not baptized yet.

Quote:
Are you sure about that? Little is know about Pope Stephen I as he was pope during a period of persecution and he, hinself, died a martyr. His pontificate is know for the schism regarding the ‘lapsed’ christians. Those were people who denied their faith to protect their lives. Other argued they had to be rebaptized to rejoin the church but Stephen said no their original baptism was not rendered null and void. I can’t find anything on him about what you write. What is your source?

The Lives of Popes by Michael J. Walsh.

Well Mr. Walsh is an author but not a historian. First of all in 250 AD there was no Pope Stephen I. In fact there was no Pope. Fabian was Pope from 236 AD until he died a martyr on Jan 20, 250 at the beginning of the Decian persecution. Due to the ongoing persecutions the next Pope was not elected until March, 251 AD when there was a lulll in the persecutions. Cornelius was then elected but he was martyred in June 253. The next pope was Pope Lucius I who reigned from June, 253 AD to March, 254 AD. Following Lucius came Pope Stephen I who was pope from 254-257 AD. Now If Michael Walsh can not get simple dates of when a person was pope correct do you expect me to think he got
what that pope taught correct??? And this is especially so since Mr. Walsh seems to be the only person who makes the claims that he does.

Quote:
In Trinitarian baptism when one is baptized it is with water and the Spirit. In Acts we see the story of those who were baptized but upon whom the Spirit had not come. Peter and John laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. This is the sacrament of Confirmation. On Pentecost the Apostles received a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit. One can only conclude that one can receive the Spirit in different degrees. as, obviously, not everyone receives the same gifts of the Spirit.

Again ,many receive the Spirit before any baptism of water. Whatever the apostles received on Pentecost ,the gentiles also received, according to Peter.

They receive the spirit but not the way the apostles did. I don’t know anyone who claims that when they allegedly received the spirit that tongues of flame descended and rested above their heads. Do you?

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Quickly but I think if you read where the gentile family that Peter preached to (Cornelius?) the spirit fell on them while he preached (book of Acts)and again at the Jerusalem council Peter says that they(gentiles) recieved “same as us” or something to that effect .thanks

Act 10 (Cornelius): Extraordinary circumstance there (it’s the only place I can find where the Holy Spirit is said to work through people prior to water baptism). Peter was conflicted because the Jewish laws forbade him to touch anything unclean or to even go visit a gentile. God told him to go and so he went. He preached the gospel to them and the Holy Spirit came down to show him that the Gentiles were to also be included. He then realizes his error and immediately says that they should be baptized in water (no one should forbid it). This passage is proof of the Catholic concept of baptism by desire. They had a desire to be baptized and so the Holy Spirit worked through them as a sign, and so they were then baptized in water.

Acts 15 is the other place you are talking about but all I could find was that they received the same Word of God that the Jews received.

 

[david_ruiz]

He is a believer who is not baptized yet.

thank-you

Well Mr. Walsh is an author but not a historian. First of all in 250 AD there was no Pope Stephen I. In fact there was no Pope. Fabian was Pope from 236 AD until he died a martyr on Jan 20, 250 at the beginning of the Decian persecution. Due to the ongoing persecutions the next Pope was not elected until March, 251 AD when there was a lulll in the persecutions. Cornelius was then elected but he was martyred in June 253. The next pope was Pope Lucius I who reigned from June, 253 AD to March, 254 AD. Following Lucius came Pope Stephen I who was pope from 254-257 AD. Now If Michael Walsh can not get simple dates of when a person was pope correct do you expect me to think he got

Sorry ,my fault - it is called rounding out. I was four years off. Mr Walsh has the exact dates you have for all the popes listed and Stephen is 254-57. Mr Walsh is a Roman Catholic historian and writer a former Jesuit and 8 other historians helped contribute(Walsh was books “editor”). My devoted Catholic mother lent me the book. Actually it is a pretty good book to have, especially if one has an interest in this area.

They receive the spirit but not the way the apostles did. I don’t know anyone who claims that when they allegedly received the spirit that tongues of flame descended and rested above their heads. Do you?

I read a lot of people saying that just because it isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean it didn’t happen (tongues of fire ) . All I know is that Peter says they received (gentiles) same as the apostles received .Whatever that means, that is what Peter says . They spoke in tongues etc. and praised God , just as the apostles ,before water baptism.

 

[david_ruiz]

Act 10 (Cornelius): Extraordinary circumstance there (it’s the only place I can find where the Holy Spirit is said to work through people prior to water baptism). Peter was conflicted because the Jewish laws forbade him to touch anything unclean or to even go visit a gentile. God told him to go and so he went. He preached the gospel to them and the Holy Spirit came down to show him that the Gentiles were to also be included. He then realizes his error and immediately says that they should be baptized in water (no one should forbid it). This passage is proof of the Catholic concept of baptism by desire. They had a desire to be baptized and so the Holy Spirit worked through them as a sign, and so they were then baptized in water.

Acts 15 is the other place you are talking about but all I could find was that they received the same Word of God that the Jews received.

Thank you for reading it .Peter did not make a "mistake But it is telling of your predicament when doctrine puts God in a box and says that wind (the Spirit) must work this way, a formula , a method. But I sometimes think Peter made a mistake by saying be baptized then receive the Holy Ghost, cause people would think that is the formula- water baptism = the gift of the Holy Spirit, and forget they had to repent from unbelief ,and BELIEVE first, according to Peter ! You place "special "circumstances on Cornelius ,to explain the extraordinary . Well perhaps there was special circumstances in Ch 2 also . These people crucified the Lord .Perhaps the spirit would not descend unless faith had it’s “work” ,it’s “feet” or proof, in water baptism (public confession) . Alas he did not make a mistake here either .As some have said here there is water baptism and their is Holy Spirit baptism (confirmation ?) This is not to be confused with regeneration ,or indwelling of the Spirit unto faith and salvation. All I see in scripture are people “believing”, having this gift of faith from God. We also know "believe and ye shall be saved, or “they gladly received Peter’s word, then were baptized” (Acts2::41) .One can not gladly receive anything from God unless he is born again ,repented ,believes in the "report , the gospel. I certainly did not gladly receive the good news, until I repented and asked for faith to believe the “report” .“Ask and it shall be given” (Cornelius asked and boy did he receive). So did I, BEFORE any water baptism. It would be extraordinary , except for the fact that it happened to Cornelius, and continues to today.