Mormonism: Restoration of Ancient Christian Church?

[twopekinguys]

f

How about changing baptism to not be by immersion and adding chrysm to Confirmation? Chrysm is not mentioned in the New Testament.

I am still waiting on your Biblical reference that shows baptism was by immersion.

I already explained that anointing is in the Bible.

Please back up your assertion that baptism in the Bible was by immersion.

Being a simple man, you should know that if you make the claim, you have to provide the proof.

 

[KathleenGee]

In earliest Christianity, there was indeed the Rite of Christian Initiation, a most elaborate ceremony done at night with candle lights, balsam oil, and holy water, use of various rooms that yes, did include the anointing of oil. In fact they were bathed in it and wanted to maintain the fragrance of balsam for days after initiation.

The earliest Christians were baptized and anointed with both water and oil, and the laying down of their lives to Christian in the face of martyrdom certainly verified the strengthening and confirming presence of the Holy Spirit following Baptism through water.

Without Sacred Tradition, non-Catholics have absolutely no knowledge of what happened beyond the Epistles. We find the full deposit of faith in Christ through Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition – how the Apostles and their chosen successors further established the Church and the rites of initiation, including Holy Orders by the laying on of hands through licit bishops.

Why on earth would they apostate from these foundations???

 

[twopekinguys]

In earliest Christianity, there was indeed the Rite of Christian Initiation, a most elaborate ceremony done at night with candle lights, balsam oil, and holy water, use of various rooms that yes, did include the anointing of oil. In fact they were bathed in it and wanted to maintain the fragrance of balsam for days after initiation.

The earliest Christians were baptized and anointed with both water and oil, and the laying down of their lives to Christian in the face of martyrdom certainly verified the strengthening and confirming presence of the Holy Spirit following Baptism through water.

Without Sacred Tradition, non-Catholics have absolutely no knowledge of what happened beyond the Epistles. We find the full deposit of faith in Christ through Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition – how the Apostles and their chosen successors further established the Church and the rites of initiation, including Holy Orders by the laying on of hands through licit bishops.

Why on earth would they apostate from these foundations???

Thanks, but, you’'re missing my point.

 

[KathleenGee]

Sorry…I was referring to the comment about there being no chrism in early church.

 

[gazelam]

f

I am still waiting on your Biblical reference that shows baptism was by immersion.

I already explained that anointing is in the Bible.

Please back up your assertion that baptism in the Bible was by immersion.

Being a simple man, you should know that if you make the claim, you have to provide the proof.

John 3:23 (KJV) And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Mark 1:5 (KJV) And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:9, 10 (KJV) And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him

Acts 8:36-39 (KJV) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Romans 6:4 (KJV) Therefore **we are buried with him by baptism **into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:12 (KJV) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And here’s a couple of ECF quotes thrown in for good measure…

Tertullian said, "There is no difference whether one is washed in a sea or a pool, in a river or in a fountain, in a lake or in a channel: nor is there any difference between those whom John dipped in the Jordan, and those whom Peter dipped in the Tiber…

Tertullian also said “We are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.”

Justin Martyr said “After [repentance] they are led by us to where there is water, and are born again in that kind of new birth by which we ourselves were born again. For upon the name of God, the Father and Lord of all, and of Jesus Christ, our Saviour, and of the Holy Spirit, the** immersion in water **is performed, because the Christ hath also said, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’”

 

[gazelam]

Gazelam, don’t you think, considering Mormonism’s basic tenant that the Catholic Church is an abomination because of its creed…we are the only ones who have a creed, not Islam or Buddhism - that you will get very comprised information as to what IS the Catholic Church and what it actually professes???

Martin Luther took it on himself, alone, to decide for himself a new form of Christianity, and wanted to get back to the Jewish texts…but he ended up in the Mizorant tradition that does not have the same belief in the forthcoming Messiah as did the apostles and those who became Jewish Christians at the beginning of Christianity.

Mormonism has its own sense of beginnings and history. Judeo Christianity has ours. There are two basic interpretations of Sacred Scripture – the Mizorant and the Septuagint.

The Apostles and St. Paul used the Septuagint interpretation, that foresaw the coming Messiah. The Mizorant is used by Jews who foresee a different form of Messiah. The Apocrypha was used by the Jewish people before Christ. In Wisdom and Proverbs, there are passages that show the universe was created by the Natural Law, that includes the use of reason with faith.

Early on, the Christian Fathers both drew on Greek philosophy for the standard of international employ of reason, particularly Aristotle. But likewise, the Church heavily criticized Greek philosophy for its flaws in reason. The fruit of this contention came to a head with St. Thomas Aquinas and his use of logic to prove the existence of God and His works.

The Catholic Church is the foundation of Western Civilization for its application of natural law, its work in science, the foundation of education for public schools and universities to serve its populations, the framework for modern law that is practiced today, the arts and music…all drawn from inspirations of the Books of Apocrypha. The Dark Ages were anything but that, the monasteries providing agricultural methods developed by them to serve the surrounding populations.

Germany and England both had nationalistic movements to fracture the union of faith in the Christian world, and Martin Luther took it on his own to remove the Apocrypha and the letter of St. James.

The work of compiling of Sacred Scripture was done by St. Jerome who knew Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and put Scripture into the books of the Bible, copying the words literally. This was done several hundred years after the death and resurrection of Christ, but the books were chosen and in use already by 100 AD.

Early Church Fathers worked in conjunction with the Church, and submitted their writings to the Church for approval, which was the work in communion of spirit of one heart and one mind in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

I would never leave the communion of Catholicism to follow an American who grew up in post colonial America 1800 years after the fact.

It is good you are here, and I personally welcome you in your dialogue, but yes, you really have to take a double look at the ideas Mormonism is teaching you about Catholicism because it is essentially and deliberately compromised. See it here all the time.

Thanks for your attention and God bless!

I appreciate you taking time to share with me your beliefs. May God bless you too.

 

[lax16]

John 3:23 (KJV) And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Mark 1:5 (KJV) And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:9, 10 (KJV) And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him

Acts 8:36-39 (KJV) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Romans 6:4 (KJV) Therefore **we are buried with him by baptism **into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:12 (KJV) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And here’s a couple of ECF quotes thrown in for good measure…

Tertullian said, "There is no difference whether one is washed in a sea or a pool, in a river or in a fountain, in a lake or in a channel: nor is there any difference between those whom John dipped in the Jordan, and those whom Peter dipped in the Tiber…

Tertullian also said “We are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.”

Justin Martyr said “After [repentance] they are led by us to where there is water, and are born again in that kind of new birth by which we ourselves were born again. For upon the name of God, the Father and Lord of all, and of Jesus Christ, our Saviour, and of the Holy Spirit, the** immersion in water **is performed, because the Christ hath also said, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’”

Hi gazelam -

The Didache states:
“Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

And what about Paul’s baptism? - he wasn’t immersed.

And when Peter baptized 3,000? - that was in an area where there was not water for immersion.

 

[twopekinguys]

John 3:23 (KJV) And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Mark 1:5 (KJV) And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:9, 10 (KJV) And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him

Acts 8:36-39 (KJV) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Romans 6:4 (KJV) Therefore **we are buried with him by baptism **into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:12 (KJV) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And here’s a couple of ECF quotes thrown in for good measure…

Tertullian said, "There is no difference whether one is washed in a sea or a pool, in a river or in a fountain, in a lake or in a channel: nor is there any difference between those whom John dipped in the Jordan, and those whom Peter dipped in the Tiber…

Tertullian also said “We are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.”

Justin Martyr said “After [repentance] they are led by us to where there is water, and are born again in that kind of new birth by which we ourselves were born again. For upon the name of God, the Father and Lord of all, and of Jesus Christ, our Saviour, and of the Holy Spirit, the** immersion in water **is performed, because the Christ hath also said, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’”

And yet, none of the scripture you quoted mention anything about immersion do they?

Going down into the river, or coming out of the river in no way indicate immersion. Going to the Jordon does not indicate immersion. Buried does not indicate immersion.

See what Lax has to say, in the previous post, and go from there.

 

[lax16]

And yet, none of the scripture you quoted mention anything about immersion do they?

Going down into the river, or coming out of the river in no way indicate immersion. Going to the Jordon does not indicate immersion. Buried does not indicate immersion.

See what Lax has to say, in the previous post, and go from there.

Hi twopekinguys!

You are correct, there is nothing stating baptism by immersion. And even if it can be assumed so, that is obviously not the only way baptism occurred.

It seems to me that both types of baptism were probably used depending on the circumstances - I will never understand why non-Catholics make such a big deal about this.

 

[twopekinguys]

Hi twopekinguys!

You are correct, there is nothing stating baptism by immersion. And even if it can be assumed so, that is obviously not the only way baptism occurred.

It seems to me that both types of baptism were probably used depending on the circumstances - I will never understand why non-Catholics make such a big deal about this.

There was a time when many Catholics didn’t know much about scripture. That however has changed. Many everyday, pew sitting Catholics are studying more and more.

These old accusations are getting shot down more and more every day. More and more people are realizing that the everyday Catholic is not oblivious to scripture, and are becoming more prepared to defend the faith.

Now, with that said, are there Catholics who are, or were poorly catechized? Absolutely. We need to help them, and set them straight right along with everyone else.

Just look at the Ask the Apologist section for questions asked by people identifying themselves as Catholic.

God Bless.

 

[KathleenGee]

Problem is with different Scriptural translations…others say the Lord was anointed…meaning that which was poured over His head…

That is why it is so critical that you get a most scholarly and verifiable translation.

 

[gazelam]

Hi gazelam -

The Didache states:
“Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

And what about Paul’s baptism? - he wasn’t immersed.

And when Peter baptized 3,000? - that was in an area where there was not water for immersion.

Hey lax16,

I don’t know much about the Didache and whether the RCC considers it binding and/or authoritative. But it seems that neither the LDS Church nor the RCC follows it to the letter. The LDS Church insists on immersion alone. From what little I know about the RCC, it generally goes the pouring route. There’s a very large river very close to where I live and I never hear of RCC baptisms being done there. Everything seems to take place at the parish and I assume by pouring, but I don’t know for sure. Anyway pouring seems to be a common first choice in the RCC whereas the Didache indicates it should be a last resort.

Regarding Paul’s baptism scripture seems silent on the mode (see Acts 9:18, Acts 22:16) I’m unaware of other references to Paul’s baptism in the Bible.

Regarding Peter baptizing the 3000 believers (Acts 2:41), Acts 2:5 indicates that the location was Jerusalem. The Pool of Siloam is very close to the old city today and may have been inside the old city anciently (the current wall is in a different location than the old wall) and would be a water resource for such a large baptism. In fact I believe that the Pool of Siloam was intended to be the water supply of Jerusalem when the city was being attacked from the outside. The Pool of Siloam is fed by Hezekiah’s tunnels.

That’s my $0.02 worth…

 

[aspirant]

And yet, none of the scripture you quoted mention anything about immersion do they?

Going down into the river, or coming out of the river in no way indicate immersion. Going to the Jordon does not indicate immersion.

Indeed, the traditional iconographic depiction of Christ being baptized by John in the Jordan shows infusion (pouring) rather than immersion:

http://www.eikonografos.com/album/albums/userpics/11928/baptism.jpg

This is nothing new. Baptism by infusion is depicted in some of the most ancient Christian art, such as in the catacombs:

http://dialogueoecumenique.eerv.ch/files/Un-baptême-dans-la-catacombe-de-S.-Callixte-Rome-3e-siècle.jpg

Immersion is certainly allowed and frequently practiced among Catholics, but we have never been exclusive about it.

 

[TexanKnight]

Hi gazelam -

The Didache states:
“Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

And what about Paul’s baptism? - he wasn’t immersed.

And when Peter baptized 3,000? - that was in an area where there was not water for immersion.

and just because they “came up out of the water” does not mean they were immersed. I can stand knee deep in a river and need to “come up out of the water” in order to leave the river.

 

[kimg901]

I thought that as long as the water is moving, its a valid baptism? So immersion or a few drops doesnt really matter. Its the intent and the real belief.

 

[kimg901]

There was a time when many Catholics didn’t know much about scripture. That however has changed. Many everyday, pew sitting Catholics are studying more and more.

These old accusations are getting shot down more and more every day. More and more people are realizing that the everyday Catholic is not oblivious to scripture, and are becoming more prepared to defend the faith.

Now, with that said, are there Catholics who are, or were poorly catechized? Absolutely. We need to help them, and set them straight right along with everyone else.

Just look at the Ask the Apologist section for questions asked by people identifying themselves as Catholic.

God Bless.

I ask questions at AAA too. Im not the smartest catholic but I like to see if we are truly getting the same answers from our church. Guess im weird like that

 

[twopekinguys]

I thought that as long as the water is moving, its a valid baptism? So immersion or a few drops doesnt really matter. Its the intent and the real belief.

Yep

 

[twopekinguys]

I ask questions at AAA too. Im not the smartest catholic but I like to see if we are truly getting the same answers from our church. Guess im weird like that

None of us know everything about the Church and it’s teachings, and it is natural to ask questions, but some of the questions in that forum are basic core teachings that every Catholic should know.

Take a look at this one for example forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=774558

This is why I said we need to educate fellow Catholics as well as non.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I will never understand why non-Catholics make such a big deal about this.

Well I think that the LDS perspective is the common Protestant-immersion-only perspective (recognizing that there are Protestants that do pouring and sprinkling) on this. They believe that immersion was the original way baptism was performed, and the way Christ was baptized. They believe that Catholics then changed the mode of baptism to pouring, which was wrong (and a sign of apostasy). So, LDS make a big deal about this because they see this as “tampering” with God’s ordinances, and that LDS practice the original way of performing the ordinance of baptism (which goes along with the belief in being a restoration of the primitive/New Testament Church), while pouring is seen as a post-biblical innovation. LDS will sometimes quote Isaiah 24:5 in reference to this change-
**
“5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.”**

LDS missionaries will teach investigators that because Christ was immersed, that is how they perform baptisms, along with proper authority, since Christ specifically sought out John the Baptist, who had authority to baptize.

But yes, pouring was accepted very early on, as we see in the Didache. It is also clear that Catholics do not only practice pouring baptism. Eastern Catholics (in communion with Rome) and Eastern Orthodox practice triple immersion baptisms, including immersion baptisms for infants. They view immersion as the norm, and pouring is less done. In contrast, immersion does happen in the Roman Catholic church, however less frequently than pouring.

The problem I see with the LDS argument against pouring is that it can be applied to the LDS Church itself. As I’ve mentioned before, LDS practice a washing and anointing ordinance, called the Initiatory, in the temple. The form or mode of this ordinance has gone through changes, where it is not performed as it was, and is now a “symbolic” washing and anointing. In the same way that Catholics are accused of “changing the ordinance”, the LDS Church itself has done the same thing. So really, the argument from the LDS side cannot be the mere changing of how an ordinance is performed (since they have changed how various ordinances are performed, such as the Initiatory), but whether such changes were authorized, i.e., whether the Church doing the changing had such things revealed to them by God, and/or the binding/loosing power.

 

[kimg901]

None of us know everything about the Church and it’s teachings, and it is natural to ask questions, but some of the questions in that forum are basic core teachings that every Catholic should know.

Take a look at this one for example forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=774558

This is why I said we need to educate fellow Catholics as well as non.

LOL. I see your point Two.