Ideas for explaining the 'visible church' to non-Catholics?

[Calgar]

Inferring.

Correct, and I didn’t mean it as an accusation.

The Nicene Creed says, “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin.”
So, I take it, Calgar, you reject the Nicene Creed.

Jon

It would seem that way, Jon. But keep in mind you’ve just (past few days) made me aware of the Nicene Creed. Surely you don’t expect me to make an absolute judgment on something so new to me? In addition: I just don’t see how baptism alone removes sin if a person isn’t a Christian.

Also, this is the first I’ve ever heard of the Nicene Creed. There appears to be two of them. Do you truck with both of them or do you have one in mind particularly?

 

[ESMDHokie77]

It would seem that way, Jon. But keep in mind you’ve just (past few days) made me aware of the Nicene Creed. Surely you don’t expect me to make an absolute judgment on something so new to me? In addition: I just don’t see how baptism alone removes sin if a person isn’t a Christian.

Also, this is the first I’ve ever heard of the Nicene Creed. There appears to be two of them. Do you truck with both of them or do you have one in mind particularly?

The first you’ve ever heard of the Nicene Creed? You have my sympathy…

Calgar, the Catholic understanding is that baptism MAKES YOU a Christian. It has the power to remove sins, and the belief in this power is traceable through history and evident in the Bible.

There is the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed. The Apostles’ is pretty much an abridged version of the Nicene.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Until a few years ago, I was in Calgar’s shoes: the creeds aren’t widely known outside of Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant circles.

And you’ve touched on a fundamental different between Catholics and Protestants that might help you understand some of the things we do & say that sail over each other’s heads. VERY BROADLY speaking, Catholics believe that being a Christian is conferred by baptism and membership in the Church; Protestants believe that being a Christian is conferred by confessing & accepting Christ’s sacrifice for the believer’s sins. (They may not KNOW the creed verbatim, but they know its contents, and take them very seriously indeed.)

As far as I can understand, to Catholics, a man who is unaware of the Trinity, the Gospels, and the reasons for the Crucifixion would be a terribly lax or unformed Christian, but still perhaps a Christian; while an unbaptized man COULDN’T be a Christian, having failed to meet the sine qua non definition of the term. To Protestants, it’s precisely the other way around:

I’ve probably steamrolled over several fine distinctions here, but I think it’s a useful one for C’s and Ps who each wish to understand the gobsmacked looks the one can sometimes inspire in the other. (E.g., for Protestants, “poor catechesis” isn’t something Catholics can simply get away with deploring or complaining about–it calls into question the very validity of the Church. Catholics, imagine a scandal where it turns out that priests at all levels of the Church had been switching the Host with soup crackers, and you’ll understand roughly how serious Evangelicals feel faulty or incomplete teaching to be.)

 

[jlhargus]

Posts 201, 209, and 218. I think I got the post numbers right.

What is your JL: mean? I thought you were talking to someone else there for a moment.

My initials are JL I put them there out of habit from posting on sites years ago.

What else is there if not the Bible alone? Tradition? I don’t know of any Christians that don’t have tradition. It’s just not your tradition.

JL: Answer for post 201. There is Tradition and tradition, or another way to say it, Divine or Apostolic Tradition and tradition of men. Yes all denominations have triditions even thought they deny it. That’s why Baptist interpret scripture differently than a Presbyterian, Presbyterian differently than Evangelicals etc…

Oral Divine or Apostolic Traditions are discerned by the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Oral Traditions and the Written Tradition of Scripture cannot be contradictory Oral Traditions are found in the constant lived out life of the Church. It is discerned from teachings of councils, popes, writings of the Fathers, creeds, prayers, liturgy, etc…

Divine Traditions are those Traditions handed on by the apostles WHETHER BY word OR epistle we call that the deposit of faith. [Jude1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for **THE FAITH which was ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS.]

There are also traditions of men, basically the customs of the time. Traditions of men can be changed anytime they are not doctrines. Christ didn’t even condenm triditions of men EXCEPT when those traditions of men nullify the Word. A good example of tradition of men, made a doctrine, would be OSAS, baptism profession only, faith alone, etc… None of those are taught in the Bible they actually contradict it.

An Apostolic Tradition would be the canon of the bible, The evidence is found in the lived out Traditions of the Church and those books agreement with that Tradition. Another, infant baptism, the evidence is found in the scriptures, where it is implied, and the constant lived out practice of the Church. Others would be the Trinity. The evidence is found in the scriptures where it is implied. And the lived out understanding in the Tradition of the Church as discerned and defined by Councils or the Pope. the mode of baptism by immersion is not taught in the bible. It is only known thru the lived out practice of the early Church. You also accept the Word of God in oral Tradition. When you conclude the Lord’s prayer with; for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory now and forever. It came from the liturgy being said after the Lord’s Prayer.

[2Thes3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye **WITHDRAW yourselves **FROM EVERY BROTHER THAT WALKETH **disorderly, and **NOT AFTER THE TRADITION **which he RECEIVED OF US.]

2Thes3:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and **HOLD THE TRADITIONS **which ye have been taught, WHETHER BY word, OR our epistle.

[2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP ****BY THE HOLY GHOST **which dwelleth IN US.]

2Tm 1:6 Hence I remind you to REKINDLE THE GIFT OF GOD that is WITHIN YOU THROUGH THE LAYING ON OF MY HANDS 7 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of POWER and love and self control

No place in scripture does it say **ALL Tradition **is now in the Bible. That’s a tradition of men outside scripture. The burden of proof is on those who say it is. Scripture clearly tells us to hold Tradition.

One only knows scripture is scripture thru TRADITION. Had you been born in a moslem land you would believe a tradition of men as scripture. The Church was teaching, preaching, converting and faithfully passing on ORALY that apostolic doctrine at least twenty years before the first word of the NT was written. Except for John all the apostels were dead before the NT was completely written and centuries before a set canon of books.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor There’s only one Tradition and it went like this.
There were 25 Gospels in circulation by the fourth century. It took the Catholic Church’s Tradition to separate the authentic Gospels from those that were not. In fact the Church had already decided by the second century that only four of the 25 Gospels were authentic - canonical and inspired. Unless there had been the Church’s authority, under the Pope, to decide that these were the four Gospels, YOU wouldn’t even have the New Testament to quote from, and any idea of tradition.

That’s odd. What about the greek orthodox church? They seem to have just as much of a claim as you’re making here.

JL: Answer post 209

Orthodox and Catholics where one body during this time. The schism occurred in 1054 A.D… The Orthodox are no longer in union with St Rock (Peter), on whom Christ is building his Church. The ONLY one to whom Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven and promised the gates of hell will never prevail against.

Does doing any of those things matter if you don’t have faith in Christ? Even a heathen can follow many if not most of those rules.

Post 218 answered already my post 232. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9035091&postcount=232

You answered my post 232 with the following quote and my answer follows.

What do you think comes first, faith or works? Or do they happen at the exact same time?

JL: What does the scripture tell us?

Acts2:37 Now WHEN THEY HEARD this, THEY WERE PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, AND SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 38 Then PETER SAID unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE OF YOU in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST. 39 For the PROMISE is unto you, AND to your CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, SAVE YOURSELVES from the untoward generation. 41 THEN they that gladly RECEIVED his word were BAPTIZED: and the SAME DAY were ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED stedfastly IN THE APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD (Mass), and in PRAYERS.]

First by God’s grace we hear the Word, we believe by God’s grace, we repent by God’s grace, we are baptized to remit our sins AND receive the Holy Spirit BORN AGAIN and added to the Body of Christ the Church by God’s grace, we do good works by God’s grace. This is how we are set on the road to salvation. We have been saved, we are saved, we shall be saved if we persever. Salvation is a life time process not a one time event. Once saved always saved is another tradition of men not found in scripture. Romans13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: FOR NOW IS OUR SALVATION NEARER THAN WHEN WE BELIEVED.

 

[Calgar]

Thank you for your answers.

 

[jlhargus]

Until a few years ago, I was in Calgar’s shoes: the creeds aren’t widely known outside of Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant circles.

I was also in the same shoes when a non-denominational Protestant. I never heard of the creeds or councils.

 

[jlhargus]

Thank you for your answers.

JL: You are welcome hope they help

 

[JonNC]

It would seem that way, Jon. But keep in mind you’ve just (past few days) made me aware of the Nicene Creed. Surely you don’t expect me to make an absolute judgment on something so new to me? In addition: I just don’t see how baptism alone removes sin if a person isn’t a Christian.

Also, this is the first I’ve ever heard of the Nicene Creed. There appears to be two of them. Do you truck with both of them or do you have one in mind particularly?

Sorry for the assumption. Here is what the Nicene Creed says:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

First, apologies to our Orthodox freinds, as the Lutheran version follows the Catholic with the inclusion of the Filioque.

It is one of the three ancient Creeds, along with the Apostles and Athanasian, found here:
bookofconcord.org/creeds.php#nicene
I won’t comment further about them until you’ve had a chance to read them, if you choose.

As for Baptism for the remission of sins, in Luther’s Small Catechism;

IV. The Sacrament of Holy Baptism

As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

First.

What is Baptism?–Answer.

Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.

Which is that word of God?–Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Secondly.

What does Baptism give or profit?–Answer.

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Which are such words and promises of God? Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Thirdly.

How can water do such great things?–Answer.

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

Fourthly.
What does such baptizing with water signify?–Answer.

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Where is this written?–Answer.

St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

Thanks, Calgar. I take it then that Baptists reject the Nicene Creed.

The SBC, in general, rejects creeds. Furthermore, the baptist church near my home does, in fact, re-baptize individuals. I know this because under these circumstances the pastor will say “So-and-so was baptized at an early age but recently came to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ…”

It’s still confusing to me, and maybe Calgar can shed some light on this (though I want to be careful about “ganging up” on Calgar). If baptism is merely a symbol, then why “re-baptize” and why baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Couldn’t the believer simply make a public profession of faith, and then baptize him- or herself? Why is it necessary for a pastor to do the baptizing? The same question for Communion - if it’s symbolic, why is a pastor needed to administer the crackers and grape juice to the congregants?

 

[Calgar]

It’s still confusing to me, and maybe Calgar can shed some light on this (though I want to be careful about “ganging up” on Calgar). If baptism is merely a symbol, then why “re-baptize” and why baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Couldn’t the believer simply make a public profession of faith, and then baptize him- or herself? Why is it necessary for a pastor to do the baptizing? The same question for Communion - if it’s symbolic, why is a pastor needed to administer the crackers and grape juice to the congregants?

Eh, you’ll have to cut pretty deep to get blood with me.

If baptism is merely a symbol, then why “re-baptize” and why baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Re-baptize because a baby cannot understand what is going on and cannot have faith. The trinitarian formula? I have never reseached exactly why we follow it, but I imagine it’s called for by the Bible.

Couldn’t the believer simply make a public profession of faith, and then baptize him- or herself?

Where? In their front yard? I can’t imagine doing those things out of the presence of other Christians.

Why is it necessary for a pastor to do the baptizing?

Because he’s the leader of the congregation and ordained.

The same question for Communion - if it’s symbolic, why is a pastor needed to administer the crackers and grape juice to the congregants?

It is symbolic, but it’s still a serious ceremony. Again, the minister and deacons are ordained, it’s appropriate that they carry it out.

 

[Nicea325]

What else is there if not the Bible alone? Tradition? I don’t know of any Christians that don’t have tradition. It’s just not your tradition.

Sorry to rain on your parade,but the Bible-Alone is a late innovation.

 

[Nicea325]

My study of history brings me to a different conclusion.

Then you must re-examine your conclusions.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
And how can a mentally challenged person do a public profession of faith?

You mean be baptised? Depends on the person. Are we talking downs or are we talking a vegetative state?

Yes baptism. Does it matter?

 

[stewstew03]

Where? In their front yard? I can’t imagine doing those things out of the presence of other Christians.

I actually know a family that offers up their pool (in their backyard) so that the non-denominational church they attend can use if for baptisms.

Because he’s the leader of the congregation and ordained.

But if baptism isn’t necessary for salvation, and really isn’t necessary for anything according to SBC theology, then it shouldn’t matter who does the baptizing.

It is symbolic, but it’s still a serious ceremony. Again, the minister and deacons are ordained, it’s appropriate that they carry it out.

Okay, so it’s a serious ceremony, but there’s no need to be ordained in order to administer crackers and grape juice.

 

[Nicea325]

If baptism is merely a symbol, then why “re-baptize” and why baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Calgar:
Re-baptize because a baby cannot understand what is going on and cannot have faith. The trinitarian formula? I have never reseached exactly why we follow it, but I imagine it’s called for by the Bible.

Re-baptism in itself, has no effect. Where does baptism absolutely require intelligence? Where does Scripture explicitly state infants cannot receive baptism?

The same question for Communion - if it’s symbolic, why is a pastor needed to administer the crackers and grape juice to the congregants?

It is symbolic, but it’s still a serious ceremony. Again, the minister and deacons are ordained, it’s appropriate that they carry it out.

It is symbolic? Where does Jesus say it is merely symbolic?

 

[jlhargus]

Again, the minister and deacons are ordained, it’s appropriate that they carry it out.

JL: Do you consider your ministers to be only symbolically ordained?

 

[Nicea325]

JL: Do you consider your ministers to be only symbolically ordained?

Better yet…was Jesus death on the cross symbolic?

 

[Calgar]

But if baptism isn’t necessary for salvation, and really isn’t necessary for anything according to SBC theology, then it shouldn’t matter who does the baptizing.

Okay, so it’s a serious ceremony, but there’s no need to be ordained in order to administer crackers and grape juice.

I never said they had to.

 

[Calgar]

JL: Do you consider your ministers to be only symbolically ordained?

Wouldn’t that the antithesis of ordained?