Let's Study the Parables - 3 - Parable of the Talents

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m doing a study on these forums of the parables. I’d like to study each parable individually looking at:

a) What is the Message behind the Parable?
b) What doctrines do we see being taught in each Parable?
c) Can a Parable be used to defend against Non-Catholic doctrines?
d) What is the context of the Parable?

The talents are the gospel which some grow while others hide. Some question who owned, and who reaped, but this was a false ownership which no man was to reap. In summary your religion is to be spread to all and separated from none. You must deposit your talents across the cities not within the temple. You must not hide the value of your religion but grow the bounty, you must not question the ownership, and you may have to pay the severe penalty. Jesus was the noble man and the Phrases the citizens, God was the one who reaped and sowed the harvest.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, I think there is alot we can’t be sure about on this matter.
But, John’s baptism was most efficacious … for what it was intended. That being to purify from sins those who came to him in true repentance. And in the case of Jesus … it was efficacious in that it 1.) marked seal of approval on the sacrament … and 2.) allowed H.S. to decend upon Jesus in visible form [that John saw] which ‘remained’ upon Jesus. Thus, Jesus did receive a ‘demonstrable presence’ of H.S. on this occasion … to add to the invisible H.S. He already had within.

We can not be sure that John’s Baptism was efficacious sacramentally. Did it bring about the Jews repentance, I’m sure the answer is yes and no, depending upon the individual. But it is the same Baptism for the average Jew that the Christian Baptism was, I say emphatically NO. That would minimize Jesus’ role in the Sacrament.

Certainly those Jews baptised by John received spiritual healing from it. The H.S. ? No. But, they were certainly cleansed of previous sins.

No, you can not make that statement. They may or may not have repented up those sins, but you can’t claim they were forgiven. That’s up to God.

Furthermore, once John met Christ … he continued to baptize … but, now it was for Repentance (Plus) … not just in the expectation of the Christ, but now in name of living God-man Christ.

Where does it say that in Scripture or in any Church teaching. You are inserting your own teaching into this. There is no PLUS until the Holy Spirit comes in Baptism. Even if John had baptized using the Trinitarian formula, it would have been useless until after the Pentecost.

Hence, to prevent confusion (and I’m adding my own thoughts on this, admittedly) I seriously doubt if John would have done this.

Jesus was also preaching same message as John … that of Repentance and belief in Gospel message [from the One]. And, his disciples were doing the baptizing for him [at His direction].

For a period both messengers were jointly promoting the good news … but, Jesus and his group were getting more converts. Thus, it can be inferred that Jesus never told John to stop doing his efficacious ministry. Commonsense should tell us that John recognized and modified his baptisms to conform with message of Jesus.

As I explained above, common sense would have claimed that John wouldn’t change his baptism, for it would have prevented confusion. The Holy Spirit was still missing from the picture.

John was the greatest prophet born of woman … and had the H.S. while within womb. If any man ever lived w/o sin … it would of been John the Baptizer. The Bible does not say that he was sinless … but, probably very close to the perfect man, and thus everything he did was truly efficacious.

I agree with everything you said right here until the last clause. Just because John is filled with the Holy Spirit does not mean he has the authority to bring the Holy Spirit to others until the hour had come. That hour came at Pentecost.

Think about it. If the Jews were cleansed of their sin and sealed with the Holy Spirit… then why did Jesus have to die?

 

[scaron]

Think about it. If the Jews were cleansed of their sin and sealed with the Holy Spirit… then why did Jesus have to die?

Exactly. Well put.

Think about this, too - what Jew would believe in forgiveness of sin without a sin offering mediated by a high priest? This is the basis of the Mosaic Law, and Temple worship.

Clearly, without the instituted High Priesthood of Jesus, and without the sin offering of His Precious Blood, there cannot be forgiveness of sin thru baptism.

This is exactly the argument of the Letter to the Hebrews.

 

[BRB]

We can not be sure that John’s Baptism was efficacious sacramentally. Did it bring about the Jews repentance, I’m sure the answer is yes and no, depending upon the individual. But it is the same Baptism for the average Jew that the Christian Baptism was, I say emphatically NO. That would minimize Jesus’ role in the Sacrament.

No, you can not make that statement. They may or may not have repented up those sins, but you can’t claim they were forgiven. That’s up to God.

Where does it say that in Scripture or in any Church teaching. You are inserting your own teaching into this. There is no PLUS until the Holy Spirit comes in Baptism. Even if John had baptized using the Trinitarian formula, it would have been useless until after the Pentecost.

Hence, to prevent confusion (and I’m adding my own thoughts on this, admittedly) I seriously doubt if John would have done this.

As I explained above, common sense would have claimed that John wouldn’t change his baptism, for it would have prevented confusion. The Holy Spirit was still missing from the picture.

I agree with everything you said right here until the last clause. Just because John is filled with the Holy Spirit does not mean he has the authority to bring the Holy Spirit to others until the hour had come. That hour came at Pentecost.

Think about it. If the Jews were cleansed of their sin and sealed with the Holy Spirit… then why did Jesus have to die?

Regarding your last sentence … read my comments again. I noted that John’s early baptism did not offer H.S. I did say it did offered cleansing of sins for the Jews [those of true faith- obviously].

The Plus I spoke of is the New Factor : the reality of Jesus alive on Planet Earth … not just the earlier baptism for repentance & belief in the ‘future coming’ of the Messiah.

But, it didn’t last for long … since John need to diminish, so that Christ could increase. Once the Messiah arrived, John’s mission was full [in a general sense].

Tell me into WHAT/WHOM were the converts of Jesus baptized … by His disciples ? All I can find in Bible is it was the same Repentance of Sins done by John … plus into Gospel message of the Lord.

Do you think these early converts to Jesus, including his Apostles were rebaptized before or after Pentecost ? If not … why not?

Paul does teach that those early believers in Baptism of John lacked H.S. … and were rebaptized.

Finally, Peter in his Pentecost message called on new converts to come in faith for Baptism. Would seem to me the apostles had been adequately Confirmed earlier by Christ with H.S. when he breathed it upon them. Thus, I doubt they were rebaptized after Pentecost.

 

[NotWorthy]

The talents are the gospel which some grow while others hide. Some question who owned, and who reaped, but this was a false ownership which no man was to reap. In summary your religion is to be spread to all and separated from none. You must deposit your talents across the cities not within the temple. You must not hide the value of your religion but grow the bounty, you must not question the ownership, and you may have to pay the severe penalty. Jesus was the noble man and the Phrases the citizens, God was the one who reaped and sowed the harvest.

Very good points, TR!

Our talents are not our own. I’m not sure if I’d limit the talents to the Gospel. Some are born to teach, others to heal, others to lead, others to follow. These are among the gifts that God has given us and make up the entirety of our talents.

But you bring up a very valid point. These talents are not ours!!! They are gifts that we will return to the Lord. Will they be returned with a profit? Or will they simply rot, as our souls rot?

Also, I wouldn’t limit the citizens to the Pharisees. The citizens are anybody who prevents the Kingdom of God being fulfilled on earth. And yes, that means that sometimes (presumably) you and (definitely) I are among the citizens.

Notice, no matter what their wishes may be, the citizens are ultimately defeated by the king. Just as nothing you, I, or society can do which will bring about the defeat of His Kingdom (although sometimes it may look like His Kingdom is in peril, we all know that’s not true).

 

[BRB]

If the Jews were cleansed of their sin and sealed with the Holy Spirit… then why did Jesus have to die?

Those with belief in teachings of John & got baptized by him were sealed into future life/death of Jesus. Just like we today are sealed into past life/death/resurrection of Jesus.

Only a timeline historical issue … which a merciful God who works thru history can arrange … based on the 30 AD point-in- time death of Jesus.

Jesus had to die to fullfill the scriptures … that He would be the One perfect sacrifice for sins.

Finally, David and all the prior patriarchs and prophets … died in expectation of their promised Messiah. Their belief and ever present faith in Him sealed them into his later life/death/resurrection. There was a H.S. presence in the Old Testament times … those who experienced it Knew of Christ the King in a personal sense via H.S. The transfiguration event proves Moses and Elijah were sealed into Christ by their Old Testament times 1. belief and 2. works of faith.

 

[NotWorthy]

Those with belief in teachings of John & got baptized by him were sealed into future life/death of Jesus. Just like we today are sealed into past life/death/resurrection of Jesus.

Only a timeline historical issue … which a merciful God who works thru history can arrange … based on the 30 AD point-in- time death of Jesus.

Jesus had to die to fullfill the scriptures … that He would be the One perfect sacrifice for sins.

Finally, David and all the prior patriarchs and prophets … died in expectation of their promised Messiah. Their belief and ever present faith in Him sealed them into his later life/death/resurrection. There was a H.S. presence in the Old Testament times … those who experienced it Knew of Christ the King in a personal sense via H.S. The transfiguration event proves Moses and Elijah were sealed into Christ by their Old Testament times 1. belief and 2. works of faith.

Then why did those baptized by John need to be re-baptized?

Even John’s own words in Matthew speaks of the limit of his baptism:

I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire.

 

[BRB]

Then why did those baptized by John need to be re-baptized?

Even John’s own words in Matthew speaks of the limit of his baptism:

I’ve already answered that one … because John’s lacked H.S. That was clearly stated in my first post.

Now answer mine to you in earlier posts.

You seem to be hung up on idea that only a Trinitarian Baptism can be efficacious. In our times … this be true. But, in time of John … the ultimate Baptism of the Church established on day of Pentecost had yet to be active.

So … the question for you : Was the baptism of the Apostles by John or by Jesus? And did it include H.S. … if not why not ?
And if not … did they ever later require rebaptism ?

 

[NotWorthy]

I’ve already answered that one … because John’s lacked H.S. That was clearly stated in my first post.

But you clearly state that the repentant’s sins are forgiven. This can only happen if God is involved. He is not. This baptism is no more than a sign.

Now answer mine to you in earlier posts.

You seem to be hung up on idea that only a Trinitarian Baptism can be efficacious. In our times … this be true. But, in time of John … the ultimate Baptism of the Church established on day of Pentecost had yet to be active.

Correct. The Jews were under the Old Covenant, so nothing they could do could save themselves.

So … the question for you : Was the baptism of the Apostles by John or by Jesus? And did it include H.S. … if not why not ?
And if not … did they ever later require rebaptism ?

Nowhere in Scripture does it say the Apostles even got baptized.

If you want my hypothesis, the Apostles were not baptized until Pentecost. The breathing of the Holy Spirit by Jesus’ Gospel may or may not have been considered a Baptism, but Thomas wasn’t there. Maybe Jesus did him later if that counts as one.

But the only efficacious Baptisms that they received would have been in the upper room by Jesus (in John’s Gospel) or at Pentecost.

Of course, this is all according to the Gospel of Notworthy!

 

[BRB]

But you clearly state that the repentant’s sins are forgiven. This can only happen if God is involved. He is not. This baptism is no more than a sign.

Correct. The Jews were under the Old Covenant, so nothing they could do could save themselves.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say the Apostles even got baptized.

If you want my hypothesis, the Apostles were not baptized until Pentecost. The breathing of the Holy Spirit by Jesus’ Gospel may or may not have been considered a Baptism, but Thomas wasn’t there. Maybe Jesus did him later if that counts as one.

But the only efficacious Baptisms that they received would have been in the upper room by Jesus (in John’s Gospel) or at Pentecost.

Of course, this is all according to the Gospel of Notworthy!

Lets get real !! Certainly John’s baptism removed sins … for those who were truly repentant & who demonstrated works of repentance. Recall the Pharisees came to him for baptism and he admonished them for not demonstrating works consistent with true repentance.

John had a large following of True Believers. Again… its our faith and works done thru faith that matter for salvation. There are always gonna be exceptions to the ideal formula. God in His wisdom handles special cases … based on our Intensions [only He knows our hearts … and only He can fairly judge].

Thief on Cross had only faith … but, that alone given constraints in time/space … were sufficient to gain his salvation.

Another example … what happened to those who were baptized by John … but died before Christ began His ministry ? Are you suggesting they might be doomed because of lack of H.S. baptism ?

And, suggesting the Apostles didn’t receive baptism is not credible. Knowing Christ received baptism and later desiring Apostles to perform Baptisms … would they not feel obligated to undergo what their Christ had ? Would not Christ of insisted on it for his followers as He does for us ?

Now, take the Jews before John’s baptism. What did they do to merit salvation ? Confessed / repented just as we today … plus, they believe on the Messiah that was coming for them. No different from us today believing He has already come for us.

Hindsight is not always 20/20 … but, we see more clearly than they. Old Testament Jews are judged by their faith in future King, desire for repentance of sins, and demonstration of good works/keeping law as best they could. And finallly, it seems that those who died prior to Jesus … got a special presentation by Jesus immediately after his death on cross. Paul speaks of Jesus witnessing to the spirits in underworld … and taking a host of them with him to heaven. Sounds like they may have got baptized by Christ himself … and then led on up to heaven.

Thats the mysterys of the Catholic faith … that are so dear to our hearts. Learning to leave the details that can’t be fully known up to the Lord. Still since nonbelievers love to ask all these tough questions … we should formulate some kind of reasonable explanation.

All Old and New Testament peoples are NOTWORTHY. GRACE is the gift that keeps on giving. It covers a multitude of sins.

“Not by might, not by power, but by the Spirit of God” … Old Testament verse of prophets.

 

[scaron]

Lets get real !! Certainly John’s baptism removed sins … for those who were truly repentant & who demonstrated works of repentance.

I’m sorry BRB. Its been said repeatedly and you cannot or will not believe it. I cannot tell you that you are wrong. Only the Lord knows this for sure. But I can tell you that this statement is not in accord with the teaching of Holy Mother Church.

You mention many later examples; of Jews before the Messiah, and Dismas the good thief, et al. All may have received a Baptism of Desire, or of Blood. This is certainly possible, but it is a mystery of the Church, and none except the Lord can tell us for sure (and yes I am aware of the Jews from the Old testament who appear to be saved for sure - Enoch, and Elijah, and Moses and Abraham, et al). Their salvation is a mystery of God. We cannot say it occurred thru any particular mechanism or baptism. It is a mystery of God.

The only ordinary mechanism of Baptism (that a human can be sure of) that removes Sin is the Trinitarian formula. And John did not have it.

All sacraments require valid form, and valid matter. The Valid matter for baptism is water. The valid form are the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. John did not, and could not, have these words. Thus, his baptism was a prefigurement, and a necessary one, but could not have been efficacious for the removal of sins, in any ordinary sense understood by men. This is the teaching of the Church.

You may be right. The Lord may have weighed each heart, and dispensed Baptism of Desire where appropriate. But we, and you, cannot know this.

 

[NotWorthy]

Lets get real !! Certainly John’s baptism removed sins … for those who were truly repentant & who demonstrated works of repentance. Recall the Pharisees came to him for baptism and he admonished them for not demonstrating works consistent with true repentance.

So says BRB. Do you know of anyone else that teaches this? Where does it say that John’s baptism did anything sacramentally (i.e. forgiving of sins).

John had a large following of True Believers. Again… its our faith and works done thru faith that matter for salvation. There are always gonna be exceptions to the ideal formula. God in His wisdom handles special cases … based on our Intensions [only He knows our hearts … and only He can fairly judge].

Thief on Cross had only faith … but, that alone given constraints in time/space … were sufficient to gain his salvation.

that… and the Words of Christ.

Another example … what happened to those who were baptized by John … but died before Christ began His ministry ? Are you suggesting they might be doomed because of lack of H.S. baptism ?

I’m not suggesting anything other than they are in the same boat as those who were righteous people 1000 years earlier than John the Baptist.

IOW, John the Baptist’s baptism did nothing extra for those people.

And, suggesting the Apostles didn’t receive baptism is not credible. Knowing Christ received baptism and later desiring Apostles to perform Baptisms … would they not feel obligated to undergo what their Christ had ? Would not Christ of insisted on it for his followers as He does for us ?

Yes, but Christ did not institute the Sacrament of Baptism til after His death. Period.

Now, take the Jews before John’s baptism. What did they do to merit salvation ? Confessed / repented just as we today … plus, they believe on the Messiah that was coming for them. No different from us today believing He has already come for us.

Except they didn’t merit Salvation. I know of no teaching that reveals what happened to the Pre-Christian Jews, other than that Jesus preached to the dead during his 3 day Sabbatical.

Hindsight is not always 20/20 … but, we see more clearly than they. Old Testament Jews are judged by their faith in future King, desire for repentance of sins, and demonstration of good works/keeping law as best they could. And finallly, it seems that those who died prior to Jesus … got a special presentation by Jesus immediately after his death on cross. Paul speaks of Jesus witnessing to the spirits in underworld … and taking a host of them with him to heaven. Sounds like they may have got baptized by Christ himself … and then led on up to heaven.

They may have. That’s entirely up to Christ.

But… no one’s sins were forgiven strictly because they repented and were baptized by John the Baptist.

Thats the mysterys of the Catholic faith … that are so dear to our hearts. Learning to leave the details that can’t be fully known up to the Lord. Still since nonbelievers love to ask all these tough questions … we should formulate some kind of reasonable explanation.

Another thing that is near and dear to the Catholic Faith is that we can’t make up rules that are contrary to Her teaching. If you can show me where the Church teaches anything like you are claiming regarding John’s baptisms, then I’ll fall in line like a loyal soldier, and offer up a sincere apology for doubting you.

All Old and New Testament peoples are NOTWORTHY. GRACE is the gift that keeps on giving. It covers a multitude of sins.

“Not by might, not by power, but by the Spirit of God” … Old Testament verse of prophets.

That’s great. But nowhere does John claim that his baptism is simply a sign for people to repent and prepare themselves for the coming of the Kingdom.

 

[Nita]

Hello BRB and Notworthy,

I’m almost afraid to jump into the middle of this - but here goes!!

It appears the actual date for the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism has not been officially defined and is still open to personal opinion and discussion.

From “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott (Under “1. The Sacrament of Baptism”, p351 if you have the book by Tan Pub.):

3. The Actual Time of the Institution of Baptism
The exact time of the institution of Baptism cannot be established from Holy Writ. Theologians are divided in their opinions. Some assign as the time of institution the Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan (Petrus Lombardus, Sent. IV 3, 5; St. Thomas, S. th. III 66, 2; Cat. Rom. II 2, 20); others the conversation with Nicodemus (Peter Abelard; cf. St. Bernard of Clairvaux; Ep. 77), others the promulgation of the mandate of Baptism before the Ascension (Hugo of St. Victor, De sacr. II, 6, 4; Mag. Roland). The first two views are based on the improbable assumpotion, that the baptism of the Disciples was Christian sacramental Baptism. Against the first opinion we may note above all the silence of holy Writ; against the second, the external circumstances, in which the words of Jesus on the necessity of Baptism for salvation were spoken. The probabilities are in favour of the occasion in Mt. 28, 19; still the mandate of Baptism does not exclude an earlier institution.

…

Nita

 

[BRB]

John did not, and could not, have these words. Thus, his baptism was a prefigurement, and a necessary one, but could not have been efficacious for the removal of sins, in any ordinary sense understood by men. This is the teaching of the Church.

You may be right. The Lord may have weighed each heart, and dispensed Baptism of Desire where appropriate. But we, and you, cannot know this.

We certainly know that the Father and the Son sanctioned John’s ministry with : Message of Repentance and teaching that the time of Messiah was at hand. And his insistance that the converts show fruits (works) c/w contrition of heart.

Christ came to John for his Baptism … thus giving His seal of approval to John’s work. Yes, John knew his work would of necessity decrease … so the Lord’s could increase. It also appears in St. John, at least the first 5 apostles were followers of John the Baptizer … and if so they had experienced baptizm from him. Jesus may of rebaptized them … but, the beloved Apostle doesn’t tell us.

Again … Christ accomplished in 11 of the 12 what He desired, and called them Clean. Even if Judas performed baptisms(which is probable) … his would of been efficacious to those receiving … because it doesn’t depend on faith of the one saying the words.

 

[BRB]

Hello BRB and Notworthy,

I’m almost afraid to jump into the middle of this - but here goes!!

It appears the actual date for the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism has not been officially defined and is still open to personal opinion and discussion.

From “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott (Under “1. The Sacrament of Baptism”, p351 if you have the book by Tan Pub.):

Nita

Thank you Nita … words of wisdom from a sister of faith.

John the Baptist was on a mission from God … possessing H.S. from the womb. Whatever he did was at direction of the Trinity. To deny this is to deny the Gospel.

 

[NeedImprovement]

There are some really great posts here; helps me have different perspectives on the parable.

My personal take goes like this: Charity - true charity, is putting one’s talents at the service of one’s fellow men. Many of God’s gifts and graces to us are meant to be shared with others. I believe the man with the one talent failed in this respect.

…Even worse…I can see traces of myself in him. Thank our dear Lord for the sacraments of healing.

God bless all and thanks for sharing.

 

[butterflygirl12]

Well I am glad the we are having this discussion . Because this parable has always confused me a little. But what I am thinking it means. In my personal opinion is that we are to take the talents God has given each of us and use them to serve or brothers and sisters. At the end of our lives we will be judged according to what we did with them. Boy I hope I am using mine for the kingdom:bible1: oh yeah and to whoever was the one that asked if it was Mary or Martha with the perfume. It was Mary. Sorry about not remembering who asked that.