G
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, we see it differently, Phil. Catholics understand that what was pre-figured in the OT is fulfilled in the NT. The rite of entrance into the Old Covenant was circumcision. The rite of entrance into the New Covenant is Baptism. It is clear that babies are to be initiated into the covenant, and that children are not to be withheld from Christ.
We also know that the NT does not contain all of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and since we have the earliest evidence that the Apostles baptized infants, we receive this as authoritative teaching.
N
nonsumd
Guest
Thank you, guanophone, for the comprehensive reply.Most Protestants look at salvation through the lens of Paul because the Pauline literature gives the fullest and most detailed theology present in the NT. Most are not taught to interpret his writings in the light of other NT passages, but take them peicemeal, or relate them only to other Pauline letters. Once, I even had a Paulist tell me that Jesus did not really have much to say on the topic of salvation because he had not yet been crucified!
This Protestant focus on Paul seems very strange to me as a Catholic. Because of the structure of our Liturgy of the Word, we Catholics are led to focus on the Gospels and to see both the OT and the Epistles of the NT as subordinate to the Gospels. It seems odd to me that many Protestants put such an emphasis on a “personal relationship” with Jesus and yet they seem to pay rather more attention to Paul’s words than to Jesus’ own, even going so far as neglecting the Our Father/Lord’s Prayer.
That particular example brings me to the approach to scripture of dispensationalist Protestants (a minority view, to be sure) who consider the Gospels to be teaching obedience to the Law and the performance of works and for that reason to be applicable only to the Jews, whereas it is only Paul who teaches what is relevant to Christians.
The Pauline corpus is very complex and without comparison with the rest of scripture many passages can be read to be contradicting each other (or at least as not supporting various Protestant “Pauline” theologies).
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, All
Matthew 28
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit .
There’s no ambiguity in this command from Jesus in Matthew.
The problem with believers baptism, lies in this; if indeed water baptism is a necessry step [and it is] for salvation, then those who teach water baptism is not necessary, are disobeying Jesus
Added to Johns baptism was the truth of the word,[Jesus] to fulfill all righteousness.
We give our children back to God, as a pure gift as was originally intended, in the beginning.
Peace, OneNow,1
Matthew 28
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit .
There’s no ambiguity in this command from Jesus in Matthew.
The problem with believers baptism, lies in this; if indeed water baptism is a necessry step [and it is] for salvation, then those who teach water baptism is not necessary, are disobeying Jesus
Added to Johns baptism was the truth of the word,[Jesus] to fulfill all righteousness.
We give our children back to God, as a pure gift as was originally intended, in the beginning.
Peace, OneNow,1
P
Phil12123
Guest
Yes, we do see things differently. Otherwise, we would not be on page 43 of this thread. I see circumcision as that which God commanded Abraham to be performed on male Jews as a sign of the Old Covenant and a means of identifying all Jewish males with that Covenant. Let’s look at it:
Genesis 17:
7. "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.
8. "Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.’’
9. And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.
10. "This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised;
11. "and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.
12. "He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.
13. "He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14. "And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.’'
**Now, when we look at the “New Testament” or the “New Covenant,” what exactly is it? And where is it expressed, as circumcision is expressed there in Genesis 17?
In regard to “covenant,” Vine says in part:**
**The NT uses of the word may be analyzed as follows:
(a) a promise or undertaking, human or divine, Gal. 3:15;
(b) a promise or undertaking on the part of God, Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; Rom. 9:4; 11:27; Gal. 3:17; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 7:22; 8:6, 8, 10; 10:16;
(c) an agreement, a mutual undertaking, between God and Israel, see Deut. 29-30 (described as a ‘commandment,’ Heb. 7:18, cf. v. 22); Heb. 8:9; 9:20;
(d) by metonymy, the token of the covenant, or promise, made to Abraham, Acts 7:8;
(e) by metonymy, the record of the covenant, 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 9:4; cf. Rev. 11:19;
(f) the basis, established by the death of Christ, on which the salvation of men is secured, Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 10:29; 12:24; 13:20. "This covenant is called the ‘new,’ Heb. 9:15, the ‘second,’ 8:7, the ‘better,’ 7:22.
**
**In the Matt. 26:28 reference, Jesus, at the institution of communion, said, “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
The New Covenant is, essentially, the Gospel, the good news that God sent His only Son to live a perfect life and then shed His blood for the remission of the sins of all who repent and put their faith in Him and His Work of redemption at Calvary. God covenants with the sinner that when he repents and believes in Jesus, his sins will be forgiven. Baptism is the sign that a person has done that and has his sins forgiven and has received eternal life. Circumcision identified a person with the chosen people of God, with whom God had a special relationship (not by faith or anything extrinsically special, but solely by God’s choosing, Deut. 7:6-8). Baptism identifies a person with the new relationship he has with God through Christ, which relationship is entered when he repents and puts his faith in Christ. A person submitting to baptism is saying, I have done that; I have repented; I have believed in Christ. So, a person does not enter the New Covenant by baptism. He enters by repentance and faith, and baptism is the sign that he has entered. And that is why it is not appropriate for infants. They have not repented or believed in Jesus. Not yet anyway. And no one can do that for them. Until they do it themselves for themselves, they are not, and should not, be baptized.**
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Continuing on that particular line of interpretation, would it not also be disobedience to baptize anyone that you were not going to continue to disciple or anyone who was unwilling to submit to the teaching ministry of a church?
I have seen this (in my opinion, terrible) practice in Assemblies of God, Baptist, Catholic, and Methodist churches.
Among Catholics and Methodists it occurs when the grandkids are born, everyone returns to visit grandpa and grandma and the old church where mom and dad grew up, and they seek to have the preist/pastor baptize the new baby. The whole thing turns into a family reunion. Then mom and dad leave and head back to their own homes, of course take the baby with them, and that is the last time the kid ever sees the inside of a church. It is a mockery of what baptism is about. No wonder Baptists get upset by it.
Among Assemblies of God and Baptists, there is a big revival. The “worst sinner in town” begrudgingly attends and has an encounter with God. He gets “saved”, coming down front to the altar to confess his sins and pledge to seek to live a life of righteousness before God and all of humanity. He’s still on fire a week late and comes to church where there is a great service of celebration and all those who made confessions of faith are baptized into their new life in Jesus Christ. The following week the man shows up in church again, but the week after something else has come up and he is out of town, so he doesn’t attend church (either at home or elsewhere). But he is back a week later. Now all of this time all he is doing is going to church on Sunday, not participating in Sunday school, Bible study, small groups, or any other form of fellowship or discipling. He just goes to the worship service. And when he is gone out of town again, people know that he’ll be back again someday, but a week becomes two and then three and soon we are measuring months, and eventually the church has another revival and they are so excited because the man has come back, but not once is he ever discipled in his faith and eventually he simply drifts away for good.
Now, people will say that this isn’t the way it is supposed to happen, and I would agree. And maybe it isn’t even the way it does happen in your churches. But I have seen it happen these ways too many times in churches of every denomination, and I myself have been guilty of it as well. Wouldn’t it be nice if instead of arguing about the mode of baptism, that were were challenging each other to more and more effective discipling?
N
nonsumd
Guest
Grace Seeker, please note that I wrote “so many Protestants read…” I did not mean to imply that all Protestants think that way. You would have been right to infer that if I had written “Protestants read…”
“So many” could mean both tens of millions of Protestants and yet still a minority of Protestants, couldn’t it? In any case, that is what I intended to be understood.
In the ordinary course of things, I long ago did notice that Protestant televangelists spent a lot of time expounding on Paul. Then I read in books comparing Catholicism and fundamentalism/evangelicalism (such as David Currie’s Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic) that certain Protestant groups do go as far as to keep Paul in their pocket and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John on the shelf, as it were. I found that hard to believe until I encountered just this sort of mentality in many “Bible Christians” I would debate doctrine with on message boards (one even contended that “forgiving those who trespass against us,” was not an essential part of being saved).
I am not exactly sure what you mean by distinguishing between what Jesus did and what Jesus said or between the Good News that He is as opposed to the Good News that He brought. Is it not His Redemptive Sacrifice that is the ultimate expression of that dying to the self that He asks us to accept if we are to enter the Kingdom of God, if we are to know and bring the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth in our earthly lives?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Yes it would, which is why adults seeking baptism for themselves in the Catholic Church undergo a lengthy period of evangelization and catechesis (typically anywhere from 6 months to two years), before being permitted to approach the Sacraments of Initiation, which are Baptism, Confirmation, and First Holy Communion, in that order.
It’s also why parents are required to attend at least three meetings, one of which is with a priest, before having their children baptized in the Church - where they make a promise before the assembled gathering that they will raise their children in the Catholic faith. At the end of the ceremony, there is a parental blessing, in which fathers are reminded, “Together with your wife, you are your child’s first teacher,” and he is reminded that one of the most important things he must teach his child is the Catholic Faith.
Now, people are imperfect - I have often seen adults come into the Church after the period of instruction lacking basic information, like where and how to go to Confession. Being embarrassed to ask, they just never go, and eventually they just drift away, because they know they aren’t supposed to be going to Mass with sin on their souls, but they don’t know how to go to Confession, so they feel trapped, and it doesn’t occur to them that this kind of thing happens all the time - they think they are the only person in the world who ever fell asleep during Sacraments classes - and they think someone will yell at them for not knowing this basic information. (They won’t. They might laugh, but they will be laughing with you; not at you, and they will be very glad to help you get straightened around.)
We also have families who like the cultural aspects of the Sacraments, but who don’t really understand the connection to either the Church or to Jesus, and who don’t understand why they have to bring their six week old to Mass after he has been baptized, or why he (or they) should even have to go to Mass at all before his First Holy Communion. It’s an uphill challenge, but I know that priests everywhere are doing everything they can to welcome these families back to Church, and to try to get them to understand what’s really going on.
I have seen priests refuse baptisms in cases where it was clear that the parents had absolutely no clue.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Hooray!! Glad to hear it.
Sorry to say it isn’t everywhere. I don’t know what the local priest does here, never had that conversation with him, but I do know that my brother and sister-in-law, had no clue when they had their kids baptized. It was 13 years ago that my oldest nephew was baptized and just 4 years ago for my youngest niece. And sadly they still have no clue. My SIL made it into a big family event, sent out special invitation to the “christenings”, and yet sitting there in the service, I know it was a baptism – pretty easy to tell when the priests says, “I baptize you …” – but they still missed it.
I don’t think they had any education on it at all, and only met the priest about a half hour before the service. There were 8 families all on a Saturday afternoon at a private service. Ran them through like it was a production line.
Of course, it isn’t fair to judge the entire Catholic church on the way one priest performs his duties. He seemed like a nice guy. Had a very good homily that he delivered. But for preparing the families to understand the sacrament, at least with my brother and sister-in-law, it was non-existent.
And, as I said before, from what I’ve seen, the problem of not taking baptism as seriously as we should I think exists across the board in all the different communities of Christendom.
P
Phil12123
Guest
Exactly what “evidence” that the Apostles baptized infants are you referring to? Surely, the Apostles followed Christ’s instructions to baptize “disciples” they made out of all nations (Matt. 28) and “he who believes” (Mark 16), so we should be able to conclude that there is NO evidence they baptized infants.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The evidence is that all of the early Fathers had been baptized during infancy, which is not possible unless the Apostles themselves had baptized them.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
All of the early Fathers? That’s a pretty inclusive statement. When I search for the “early Fathers” here are some of the sources I find for identifying them: ccel.org/fathers.html and newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm#appeal. In both cases one has to determine what is “early” and the New Advent Encyclopedia’s answer is:The evidence is that all of the early Fathers had been baptized during infancy, which is not possible unless the Apostles themselves had baptized them.
Well, if we accept this answer, then the early Fathers are the Ante-Nicene Fathers, but while some of them would have been early enough to have been baptized by the apostles, at least some of the early Fathers were born more than a century (perhaps two) after the last of the apostles.
Perhpas you didn’t mean to say, " all of the early Fathers", but had meant to say apostolic Fathers, instead? Is so, I again turn to the New Advent Encyclopedia for a listing of who these peopl are:
- St. Clement of Rome,
- St. Ignatius of Antioch,
- St. Polycarp of Smyrna,
- the author of the Didache,
- the author of the “Epistle of Barnabas”,
- the “Shepherd” of Hermas,
- the unknown author of “Letter to Diognetus”, and
- the author of the works accredited to Dionysius the Areopagite.
How you are going to find evidence for an “unknown author” I don’t know, but if you say it exists, I trust you actually have it and I would be interested in seeing it.
G
Gefra
Guest
IRONY:
Don’t Christians who receive Believer’s Baptism actually receive the Sacrament of Baptism if it is administered correctly.
They believe that their baptism is simply a symbol.
Won’t they be surprised to find out they received the very sacrament that they disavow.
Don’t Christians who receive Believer’s Baptism actually receive the Sacrament of Baptism if it is administered correctly.
They believe that their baptism is simply a symbol.
Won’t they be surprised to find out they received the very sacrament that they disavow.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
What do you mean “disavow”?
I suppose that there are some who would not recognize baptism as a sacrament, simply because they don’t label certain acts of grace as sacramental and others as ordinary. And certainly some, like the Quakers, don’t practice any sacraments at all, including receiving Holy Communion or practicing baptism. But most of Christendom, even those that don’t recognize all 7 Catholic sacraments, still recognizes Holy Communion and Baptism as sacraments. I don’t think they would be surprised at all to find out that in being baptized that they had received a sacrament, because even those who only practice baptism of believers do NOT disavow that it is a sacrament. They only dispute that persons who have not made a confession of faith should be eligible to receive it and some dispute that such an act is indeed a valid baptism for them.
I think you misunderstand the debate if you think that most who favor believer’s baptism would disavow baptism as a sacrament.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I am guilty of hyperbole.
What I did was I looked up all of the references to Baptism in The Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens, and since I haven’t the patience to list all of the references right here and now (because I’m trying to decide whether I should start supper, or get some housework done), I’m going to make you look them up, and from there you’ll see how I deduced that the Apostles must have been baptizing infants, including people who later became leaders in the early Church.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
That’s fine, I understand that feeding one’s family comes first. But can you give me a link? I don’t own the book.I am guilty of hyperbole.
What I did was I looked up all of the references to Baptism in The Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens, and since I haven’t the patience to list all of the references right here and now (because I’m trying to decide whether I should start supper, or get some housework done), I’m going to make you look them up, and from there you’ll see how I deduced that the Apostles must have been baptizing infants, including people who later became leaders in the early Church.
And, I’m not disputing that the apostles might have baptized infants. I suspect they did. But, if you could post even one unassailable reference, I think that might put this debate to bed.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I don’t think it’s on-line - you might have to try the library. It’s actually a set of three books - the references I’m thinking of are in Volume I. If the public library hasn’t got it, any reasonably-sized church library should have it.
As you no doubt already know, there are some who can’t even look at St. Peter’s observation that “baptism now saves you” without doubting that he actually meant baptism now saves you, so I don’t know how “unassailable” anything can really be.
Nevertheless, when St. Polycarp was martyred in 155 AD, he said, (in response to the proconsul who was urging him to revile Christ) “Eighty six years I have served him, and he has never done me wrong. How, then, should I be able to blaspheme my King who has saved me?” This puts Polycarp’s baptism into the second year after the Apostles, including St. Peter, were brought to Rome in chains from Jerusalem, so although anyone could argue about how likely it is, it is perfectly possible that Polycarp was baptized as an infant in Rome by one of the Apostles.
M
Mark_LePard
Guest
Clement of Rome was probably an adult convert to Christianity, considering he was an adult at the time of the writing of Philipians. So that probably rules him out.
The didache was not written by one person, but was a sort of rule book for the early church probably written by many.
I can’t believe you would really mention DIonysius the Aeropagite, since he was an Athenian Judge who was converted when Paul preached at Mars Hill( Areopagus, Thus Aeropagite).
I think the best way to explain is to use scripture. Col 2:12
buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Baptism is an identification with Christ in His death and resurrection. Read Romans 6 as well. How can an infant identify itself in Christ’s death and resurrection?
1 Peter 3:21-22
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Certainly to identify with the death and resurrection, repentance must come first, whic an infant can’t do.
The didache was not written by one person, but was a sort of rule book for the early church probably written by many.
I can’t believe you would really mention DIonysius the Aeropagite, since he was an Athenian Judge who was converted when Paul preached at Mars Hill( Areopagus, Thus Aeropagite).
I think the best way to explain is to use scripture. Col 2:12
buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Baptism is an identification with Christ in His death and resurrection. Read Romans 6 as well. How can an infant identify itself in Christ’s death and resurrection?
1 Peter 3:21-22
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Certainly to identify with the death and resurrection, repentance must come first, whic an infant can’t do.
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, Mark
#656 Today, 7:38 pm
Mark LePard . How can an infant identify itself in Christ’s death and resurrection?
Qoute=OneNow1,
6 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay,
7 saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Silo’am” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing
I think we must remember that in the strict sense here, Jesus is working in His human nature, Showing the glory of God the Father and guess what, he uses water to cure the blind man, and to boot the blind man did not know Jesus,at least not till later.
Welcome Mark
Peace, OneNow1
#656 Today, 7:38 pm
Mark LePard . How can an infant identify itself in Christ’s death and resurrection?
Qoute=OneNow1,
- Because He came into the world as an infant, presented in the temple, circumsized.
2.Because He died on the cross for all, to show the power of God.
6 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay,
7 saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Silo’am” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing
I think we must remember that in the strict sense here, Jesus is working in His human nature, Showing the glory of God the Father and guess what, he uses water to cure the blind man, and to boot the blind man did not know Jesus,at least not till later.
Welcome Mark
Peace, OneNow1
M
Mark_LePard
Guest
I think that’s a stretch, but what about the rest of my post?
- Status