Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[Grace_Seeker]

No, GS, gimme a break here! I wasn’t referring to “stained glass windows” – as in w-i-n-d-o-w-s; I was referring to the quote from Hillaire Belloc that the beauty of the Church can be fully appreciated only from inside – like the windows of Chartres. They don’t do a thing for you if you’re standing outside. Wasn’t that post in response to you – and on this thread?

And then you invited me inside.

I don’t need to be “inside”. I feel that already am a part of the people of God, so therefore I am inside the Church. You may not recognize it as such if you are focused on the w-i-n-d-o-w-s of Belloc, but looks can be deceiving. Look deeper. Wherever two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, Christ is there. And where you have the head and the body you have the Church. So, you wish for me to leave the Church which is the body of Christ to go inside a buidling with stained glass windows. If you have met Christ there, then more power to you. But I have met Christ somewhere else and I intend on staying where I know that I can and do experience communion with Christ.

 

[Phil12123]

Certainly not - which means if being burned at the stake is the consequence of holding that belief, then they might as well do it today, rather than put it off.

And that is exactly how the “heretics” felt, so it is not a matter of allowing enough time to recant of the alleged “heresies,” because to be true to your beliefs you would never recant unless you became convinced by God and His Word that you were not believing the truth. Hopefully all of us would change our beliefs if that were the case. But that would be the work of the Holy Spirit and not the coercive acts of man.

 

[mercygate]

And then you invited me inside.

I don’t need to be “inside”. I feel that already am a part of the people of God, so therefore I am inside the Church. You may not recognize it as such if you are focused on the w-i-n-d-o-w-s of Belloc, but looks can be deceiving. Look deeper. Wherever two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, Christ is there. And where you have the head and the body you have the Church. So, you wish for me to leave the Church which is the body of Christ to go inside a buidling with stained glass windows. If you have met Christ there, then more power to you. But I have met Christ somewhere else and I intend on staying where I know that I can and do experience communion with Christ.

GS: you KNOW I am not talking about BUILDINGS or WINDOWS. I am talking about the Person of Jesus Christ: Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity: in *His Church, *on *His *terms.

And I’m still inviting you.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

GS: you KNOW I am not talking about BUILDINGS or WINDOWS. I am talking about the Person of Jesus Christ: Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity: in *His Church, *on *His *terms.

And I’m still inviting you.

I’m NOT talking about literal BUILDINGS or WINDOWS either. I’ve tried to respond in the same figurative manner in which you addressed me.

I appreciate your invitation. However, if you look around more than just that “building” with the stain glass windows you call the church, I think you’ll find that there exists an even bigger Church that both includes your building and stretches beyond it to whereever Christ’s people gather in his name. We are all the body of Christ and I have already entered it. So, it’s not that I am refusing your invitation, it is just that it is redundant as I’m already on the inside of the Church, even though I don’t worship in your particular building. BTW, I do agree that even just what I can see from the outside that it’s stained glass windows are beautiful. I imagine that you are right they look even more beautiful from within. Of course, the sonrise, looks pretty gorgeous on its own unfiltered by colored glass, and beautiful as your windows may be, I think I prefer to just bask in the light of the son himself.

 

[mercygate]

I’m NOT talking about literal BUILDINGS or WINDOWS either. I’ve tried to respond in the same figurative manner in which you addressed me.

I appreciate your invitation. However, if you look around more than just that “building” with the stain glass windows you call the church, I think you’ll find that there exists an even bigger Church that both includes your building and stretches beyond it to whereever Christ’s people gather in his name. We are all the body of Christ and I have already entered it. So, it’s not that I am refusing your invitation, it is just that it is redundant as I’m already on the inside of the Church, even though I don’t worship in your particular building. BTW, I do agree that even just what I can see from the outside that it’s stained glass windows are beautiful. I imagine that you are right they look even more beautiful from within. Of course, the sonrise, looks pretty gorgeous on its own unfiltered by colored glass, and beautiful as your windows may be, I think I prefer to just bask in the light of the son himself.

You are mixing metaphors. The Bride and the Bridegroom are One Flesh. It was His idea. Door’s still open, GS!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You are mixing metaphors. The Bride and the Bridegroom are One Flesh. It was His idea. Door’s still open, GS!

Your view of the Church is too small for me. I already belong to the bridegroom.

 

[mercygate]

Your view of the Church is too small for me. I already belong to the bridegroom.

Yeah. I know. And we don’t.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Yeah. I know. And we don’t.

Of course you belong to the bridegroom. Why would you think that I think otherwise? You’re a Christian aren’t you? You are a follower of Jesus the Christ, you accept his Lordship in your life and acknowledge him as the purchaser of your salvation by his work of redemption on the cross. I would never say that you are anything other than one who belongs to Jesus. All who belong to Jesus are (IMO) Christians, members of the body of Christ, full brothers and sisters of one another in fellowship in the Church. It was my sense that you didn’t see me as being part of the ecclesia of Christ, not that I was trying to exclude you.

 

[mercygate]

Of course you belong to the bridegroom. Why would you think that I think otherwise? You’re a Christian aren’t you? You are a follower of Jesus the Christ, you accept his Lordship in your life and acknowledge him as the purchaser of your salvation by his work of redemption on the cross. I would never say that you are anything other than one who belongs to Jesus. All who belong to Jesus are (IMO) Christians, members of the body of Christ, full brothers and sisters of one another in fellowship in the Church. It was my sense that you didn’t see me as being part of the ecclesia of Christ, not that I was trying to exclude you.

Door’s still open and always will be.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Door’s still open and always will be.

Why do I need to enter something of which I am already a part? Why do you pereceive me as on the outside looking in? I’m in the family. I’m in the kingdom. I’m in the Church. I’m just not in the building with the stained glass windows is all. And I don’t see it as a better place to worship than where I’ve already found communion with Jesus.

 

[jaz1976]

Grace Seeker,

there is obviously a fundamental misunderstanding of what the “Church” is. Is it the body of believers? or is it what Christ built on Peter?.

Well it is both. Once again, most Protestants always try to determine “which one” whereas Catholics see it as “both___and__”

Christ in the Gospels is “both a lion and a lamb”. He brings “both peace and a sword”.

The Church is both the believers of Christ and an institution built on Peter in which he has the Keys to the Kingdom.

Finally, consider this letter written by Fulton J Sheen:

If I were not a Catholic and were looking for the true Church in the world
today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with
the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world
hates. My reason for doing this would be that if Christ is in any one of
the churches of the world today, he must still be hated as he was when he
was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the
Church that does not get along with the world.
Look for the Church that is hated by the world as Christ was hated by the
world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times as
our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having
learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at a socially inferior as
they sneered at our Lord because he came from Nazareth. Look for the
Church which is accused of having a devil as our Lord was accused of being
possessed by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Look for the Church which,
in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men
crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the
Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible as
Pilate rejected Christ because he called himself the Truth. Look for the
Church which is rejected by the world as our Lord was rejected by men.

Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions its
members love as they love Christ and respect its voice as the very voice
of its founder, and the suspicion will grow that if the Church is
unpopular with the spirit of the world then it is unworldly, and if it is
unworldly it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is
infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ himself. But only that
which is divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore
the Church is divine.

Luke 10:16 - “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects
me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

God be with you on your journey

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Grace Seeker,

there is obviously a fundamental misunderstanding of what the “Church” is. Is it the body of believers? or is it what Christ built on Peter?.

Well it is both. Once again, most Protestants always try to determine “which one” whereas Catholics see it as “both___and__”

Christ in the Gospels is “both a lion and a lamb”. He brings “both peace and a sword”.

The Church is both the believers of Christ and an institution built on Peter in which he has the Keys to the Kingdom.

Finally, consider this letter written by Fulton J Sheen:

If I were not a Catholic and were looking for the true Church in the world
today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with
the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world
hates. My reason for doing this would be that if Christ is in any one of
the churches of the world today, he must still be hated as he was when he
was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the
Church that does not get along with the world.
Look for the Church that is hated by the world as Christ was hated by the
world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times as
our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having
learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at a socially inferior as
they sneered at our Lord because he came from Nazareth. Look for the
Church which is accused of having a devil as our Lord was accused of being
possessed by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Look for the Church which,
in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men
crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the
Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible as
Pilate rejected Christ because he called himself the Truth. Look for the
Church which is rejected by the world as our Lord was rejected by men.

Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions its
members love as they love Christ and respect its voice as the very voice
of its founder, and the suspicion will grow that if the Church is
unpopular with the spirit of the world then it is unworldly, and if it is
unworldly it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is
infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ himself. But only that
which is divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore
the Church is divine.

Luke 10:16 - “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects
me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

God be with you on your journey

Yes, I agree with Fulton J. Sheen. And, yes, I am a part of that Church.

The problem, as I see it, is that the institutional Catholic church doesn’t recognize the totality of the entire catholic Church that Christ built on Peter, but only it’s small portion of it. But that discussion has already been had in another thread. The good news for this thread, is that the Catholic church does recognize the validity of baptism (infant or believer’s) performed in other parts of the Church even if it doesn’t recognize those persons as belonging to the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, I agree with Fulton J. Sheen. And, yes, I am a part of that Church.

The problem, as I see it, is that the institutional Catholic church doesn’t recognize the totality of the entire catholic Church that Christ built on Peter, but only it’s small portion of it. But that discussion has already been had in another thread. The good news for this thread, is that the Catholic church does recognize the validity of baptism (infant or believer’s) performed in other parts of the Church even if it doesn’t recognize those persons as belonging to the Church.

How can someone be “part of” something they have purposely rejected?

The English and Scottish Reformers broke the heads off of the statues of the Apostles at St. Andrew’s Cathedral Church just outside of Dundee (which is currently used as a Presbyterian seminary - they also have a golf course out in back of the church that you might have heard of; I think Tiger Woods plays there occasionally) - this was not just random vandalism - it was a clear message that they were breaking continuity with the Apostolic authority of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Reformers who did so were the ancestors of what became the Anglican and Presbyterian churches, and as you know, the Methodist Church broke away from (that is, they discontinued their unity with the authority of) the Anglican Church.

One cannot continue to be in unity with what one has so clearly and purposefully broken away from. Twice, already. Even if the Anglican Church is in some way unified through Apostolic Succession with the Catholic Church (a debate that rages ever on) surely breaking off from the Anglican church would be the final “good-bye,” would it not?

 

[NotWorthy]

One cannot continue to be in unity with what one has so clearly and purposefully broken away from. Twice, already. Even if the Anglican Church is in some way unified through Apostolic Succession with the Catholic Church (a debate that rages ever on) surely breaking off from the Anglican church would be the final “good-bye,” would it not?

jm, I seriously doubt that our good Grace Seeker has demonstrated the same revolt from the Catholic Church that these guys have in your post. It’s one thing to break away and burn the bridge behind you.

It’s quite another to be raised in a religion that you’ve been taught to be truly Christian and not accept that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Even if the Anglican Church is in some way unified through Apostolic Succession with the Catholic Church (a debate that rages ever on) surely breaking off from the Anglican church would be the final “good-bye,” would it not?

No.

Our separation from the Anglican church is purely an accident of history, American history. The political climate of the several but independent American states (the Methodist church was born on American soil between the time of the end of the Revolutionary War and the birth of the United States) is the cause which brought about the birth of a new ecclesiastical body in the former colonies. They had no Anglican priests even present, and so took extraordinary means to create a new church. One that had some small continuity with the former Anglican church in order, and adopted nearly all its theological and sacramental views, but that was decidedly American in politic. I would hazared a guess that anything the Anglican church might recognize in terms of its relationship with the Catholic church we in the United Methodist church would also recognize as well.

jm, I seriously doubt that our good Grace Seeker has demonstrated the same revolt from the Catholic Church that these guys have in your post. It’s one thing to break away and burn the bridge behind you.

It’s quite another to be raised in a religion that you’ve been taught to be truly Christian and not accept that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built

And I do think that the original catholic church is the Church that Christ built. I just don’t think that the institutional expression of the Catholic church as it exists today is the totality or sole inheritor of that catholic Church which Christ built. I think that all Christians are part of the catholic Church that Christ built, and that the Catholic church is but one expression of the whole of the catholic Church which is only truly catholic when it includes Orthodox, Coptic, Anglican and even those dreaded Presbyterians mentioned above.

I concur with Jurgen Moltmann:

The theological testimonies of the Christian fiath can be viewed in the light of their particularity. Then there are Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and many other theological testimonies. But they can also be investigated and interpreted in the light of their universality. Then they can be seen as the testimonies of the one church of Christ, and we can interpret them as contributions to the theology of this one church of Christ. Then, whatever denominational stamp a text may have, the important thing is simply its contribution to the truth to which all together are subject. Truth is universal. Only the lie is particularist.

We may not all recognize it, but there is only one true Church. And it is not your church nor my church. It is not the Catholic church nor the United Methodist church. The only true church is that which belongs to Christ. If you belong to Christ and I belong to Christ (and I assert that we both do), then we both belong to the one and the same church. But as you are Catholic and I am United Methodist it most be that neither of our churches are the one true Church. And if our institutional expressions of the church are not the one true Church, then we must learn to look elsewhere, outside of institutional expressions, to find the one true Church. I believe it is found whenever and wherever the people of God in Christ are found. Be they in a Catholic church or a United Methodist church we are not independent of one another the one true Church, but in community together we are. So, one can find the one true Church in the Catholic church and in the United Methodist church. But one does not find it in the institutions of the ecclesiastical body any more than one finds it in the brick and morter of the building. One finds it in the people of recognize Christ being present in their mids as they fellowship with one another.

 

[NotWorthy]

And I do think that the original catholic church is the Church that Christ built. I just don’t think that the institutional expression of the Catholic church as it exists today is the totality or sole inheritor of that catholic Church which Christ built. I think that all Christians are part of the catholic Church that Christ built, and that the Catholic church is but one expression of the whole of the catholic Church which is only truly catholic when it includes Orthodox, Coptic, Anglican and even those dreaded Presbyterians mentioned above.

There’s only one small problem with this. There’s that one little detail about teaching one truth. Not just on the essentials, but on everything that pertains to salvation. We sorta kinda don’t do that between these various religions. And this also brings up that whole “obedience” thing.

So, are you Catholic? Yes, but not completely. Will this prevent you from having a shot at heaven? Heaven’s no. I tell you what - we’ll finish this discussion while we’re next to each other in the Beatific Vision.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

There’s only one small problem with this. There’s that one little detail about teaching one truth. Not just on the essentials, but on everything that pertains to salvation. We sorta kinda don’t do that between these various religions. And this also brings up that whole “obedience” thing.

So, are you Catholic? Yes, but not completely. Will this prevent you from having a shot at heaven? Heaven’s no. I tell you what - we’ll finish this discussion while we’re next to each other in the Beatific Vision.

I can live with that.

 

[Phil12123]

You leave out one small point, although you gently swept it under the rug earlier. It was the authorities who burned these guys at the stake. Not because the Church told them to (you think royalty like to “cow-tow” to the Church?!?!).

No, it was because religious heresies sowed dissent, and these secular guys hated dissent. A quiet kingdom is a happy kingdom. How do we know this? Look at the Revolutions that were spawned by the Reformation?

But if you have a state religion, without separation of church and state, the state, in effect and practice, becomes the enforcer of the religion. So, if the religion judges a person to be a heretic, the state carries out the sentence of death, but it is still the religion that really sent the person to the stake, not the state.

 

[NotWorthy]

But if you have a state religion, without separation of church and state, the state, in effect and practice, becomes the enforcer of the religion. So, if the religion judges a person to be a heretic, the state carries out the sentence of death, but it is still the religion that really sent the person to the stake, not the state.

And the state doles out the punishments according to their wants, not the Church’s. If the state decided that they don’t want any type of heresy to foment revolution (like we saw in 15th or 16 century Germany, maybe?), then they would often resort to the extreme measures such as executions.

 

[Phil12123]

And the state doles out the punishments according to their wants, not the Church’s. If the state decided that they don’t want any type of heresy to foment revolution (like we saw in 15th or 16 century Germany, maybe?), then they would often resort to the extreme measures such as executions.

I understand your desire to show the Church in the best light, but when the Church ruled that a Christian was guilty of heresy, such as the belief that a person should be re-baptized after becoming a believer (thereby teaching that the first baptism was of no effect scripturally, contrary to the teaching of the RCC), it was hardly something that would “foment revolution” in terms of overthrowing any secular, civil authority. The Christian merely wished to follow Scripture, not overthrow a government. If the RCC had simply left such Christians alone (let the tares, if that is what the RCC thought they were, grow alongside the wheat and God would do the reaping and dividing, per Jesus’ parable), there would hardly have been any commotion about such beliefs. But the RCC required absolute obedience and subjection of all people and for Christians to adopt such beliefs was tantamount to treason. After all, if they allowed such beliefs to go unchallenged (and unstopped), their power and influence and authority would be questioned, challenged, and diminished. In the 1400’s and 1500’s the Church was more political than spiritual.