Non-Catholic Chrisitans on Baptism

[guanophore]

Origen

“It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism” (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).

Hermas

“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’” (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

“It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism” (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]). Cyprian of Carthage

Origen “[T]he baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church.” (Letters 72[73]:21 [A.D. 253]).

“[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12:50]” (ibid., 72[73]:22).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]” (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).

Gregory Nazianz

“[Besides the baptisms associated with Moses, John, and Jesus] I know also a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which also Christ himself was baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since it cannot be defiled by later sins” (Oration on the Holy Lights 39:17 [A.D. 381]).
Pope Siricius

“It would tend to the ruin of our souls if, from our refusal of the saving font of baptism to those who seek it, any of them should depart this life and lose the kingdom and eternal life” (Letter to Himerius 3 [A.D. 385]).

John Chrysostom

“Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood” (Panegyric on St. Lucian 2 [A.D. 387]).

Ambrose of Milan

“But I hear you lamenting because he [the Emperor Valentinian] had not received the sacraments of baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest [Wis. 4:7]’?” (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized” (Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15 [A.D. 395]).

“I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28 [A.D. 400]).

“That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart * if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism” (ibid., 4:22:29).

“When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark [by baptism of desire]” (ibid., 5:28:39).

“[According to] apostolic tradition . . . the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).

“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’ [Matt. 10:32]” (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).

Pope Leo I

“And because of the transgression of the first man, the whole stock of the human race was tainted; no one can be set free from the state of the old Adam save through Christ’s sacrament of baptism, in which there are no distinctions between the reborn, as the apostle [Paul] says, ‘For as many of you as were baptized in Christ did put on Christ; there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . ‘ [Gal. 3:27–28]” (Letters 15:10[11] [A.D. 445]).

Fulgentius of Ruspe

“From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal” (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).*

 

[YADA]

And I posted the passages from the Didache very eawrly in the thread …

It discusses the three methods, fasting, etc …

And also that those not baptized should not be admitted to recieve “Eucharist” … or Communion for some

 

[CWBetts]

Do you have a library of the ECFs intalled in your brain? Impressive, most impressive indeed!

 

[always_gr8ful]

As I said, I’ll take your word for it, and I meant it. Actually, I give you credit on this thread, as you’ve had to contend with not only Catholics but those of us who are non-catholic and believe in infant Baptism. And except for the “work of the devil” comments, I’ve enjoyed it.

Jon

Me too, Jon.

And YADA, my name is Laura. Nice to meet you.

Well folks, guanophore just told me to leave on the Evangelical thread. I’ve been posting on this board for over a month and never meant to “torment” anyone. I’ve learned a lot, and maybe I’ll be back when tempers die down or something. Thank you to all who have been so patient with me and my blunt style of posting.

 

[adrift]

Guanophore, would you please post the scripture where any Apostles taught that baptism washes away all sins?

Forbid or not forbid. May or may not. If the Apostles taught that you may not be baptized without believing, could we say it was forbidden?

always_gr8ful;5089519]Because your statement that the Apostles taught the washing away of sins through baptism has yet to be verified with scripture. You cannot verify it because our sins are washed clean by the Blood of Jesus ONLY.

I have recently learned of the false belief of Catholics earning their way to Heaven, so this doesn’t even shock me. Two weeks ago, I would have fallen out of my chair reading that!

I am having problems with your post. First to answer one of your questions, I realize that you have already quoted this scripture and it has been pointed out that you did not read far enough.

Act 2 38

Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ** for the forgiveness of your sins**; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

It goes on to say

For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.

It is not just for the adults.

One of the problems I am having is with your translations. For instance:

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.

The problem is the oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading:
So your strong support isn’t so strong and your clear mandate is not there. Your statement Acts 9

Saul (Paul) believed, regained his sight, received the Holy Spirit, and then was baptized.)

Is not scriptural.Ananias said to Paul

Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.

No believe but only be baptized to have his sins washed away

You need to explain this

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23
16 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

If you maintain that Only through the Blood of Jesus Christ are our sins washed away. Jesus teaches differently. It is only through the sacrifice of the cross is it possible for our sins to be forgiven. But you must repent and ask forgiveness. If you have just learned recently that Catholics believe they can earn there way to heaven you have learned incorrectly. I wonder who you learned this from? If you want to understand what Catholics believe start with the Catechism. In it you will learn the truth not just something you hear.

Your claim that you have to believe first because that is what you interpret the New Testament says leaves the question what does the Scriptures say about those who you say are not capable of belief first? What does it say about children.

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’

One more comment about Scripture. Can you provide the Scripture that Jesus says write everything down that I have taught you or does He say

 Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

?
The command to teach was in oral form later written down. Scripture came from the Church not Church from scripture.

If the Bible is not the VERY Word of God, then there is no Truth and everything is up for grabs. Islam, buddhists, Christians, everyone can be right because there is no authoritative Truth.

The Authoritative truth Jesus left with His Church.Without the Church everything would be left up for grabs.It is why when the Church is rejected you find so much confusion.

 

[guanophore]

Well folks, guanophore just told me to leave on the Evangelical thread. I’ve been posting on this board for over a month and never meant to “torment” anyone.

This is another good example of how you have misperceived something that has been said. I do not have the authority to tell you to leave, and if everyone like you left, there would not be much use for CAF, would there?

What I told you is that this is not a venue for you to convert Catholics into “bible christians”, and if that is why you are here, then you are in the wrong place.

It is a torment for me to have my most Holy faith, the faith for whom the Apostles and their successors gave their lives, be described as “from the devil”.

I’ve learned a lot, and maybe I’ll be back when tempers die down or something. Thank you to all who have been so patient with me and my blunt style of posting.

You are most welcome. You are the reason we are here. If you can muster the desire to really learn about Catholcism, and are willing to refrain from insulting us, then you are always welcome.

Perhaps it is your own temper that needs to die down?

 

[ParkerD]

Me too, Jon.

And YADA, my name is Laura. Nice to meet you.

I’ve been posting on this board for over a month and never meant to “torment” anyone. I’ve learned a lot, and maybe I’ll be back when tempers die down or something. Thank you to all who have been so patient with me and my blunt style of posting.

Laura,
I wanted to thank you for posting here, and for your fine comments. I enjoyed reading your perspective. It was closer to my own perspective than others posting here, though perhaps I place more emphasis on baptism and definitely more on the gift of the Holy Spirit. I love the Bible, too. What a blessing to humankind it is! Best wishes and God’s blessings to you always.

 

[JonNC]

Me too, Jon.

And YADA, my name is Laura. Nice to meet you.

Well folks, guanophore just told me to leave on the Evangelical thread. I’ve been posting on this board for over a month and never meant to “torment” anyone. I’ve learned a lot, and maybe I’ll be back when tempers die down or something. Thank you to all who have been so patient with me and my blunt style of posting.

Laura,
This can be a rough and tumble environment, but it is also very rewarding and enlightening. Hope you’ll stick around.
And btw, guonophore happens to be one of the better Catholic posters. He is quite knowledgeable and understandable.

Jon

 

[fbl9]

For my sig to be in error, Salvation = Belief + nothing, 2 Corinthians 5:21 would have to be in error. I can post a dozen scriptures in context that say we are justified in Christ alone. So who is in error - God? Or your interpretation of James 2:24?

This can depend on what you mean by belief…
salvation=Belief is very shallow for it this means that all i need to do is beleive,i don’t have to obey a single commandment,or do as my master instructs cause i beleive that’s all i need to have.

 

[fbl9]

I’m glad to hear that because other Catholics have said on this thread that baptism forgives sin. I’m still learning what all y’all believe, and that one just blew me away!

Oh yeah, ah ha. Evidenced by all those Jewish Catholics running around. “Catholic from beginning to end”. So y’all set yourselves up over the Word of God. Lovely. Remember: Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

there is no scripture provided in this post …if one is quoting scripture one needs to say where from.
if the shoe fits

 

[ParkerD]

there is no scripture provided in this post …if one is quoting scripture one needs to say where from.
if the shoe fits

Proverbs 16:18 (KJV)

I like this one equally well:

Jeremiah 9:23 Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.

I rejoice in that knowledge, and delight in understanding His lovingkindness.

 

[always_gr8ful]

And btw, guonophore happens to be one of the better Catholic posters. He is quite knowledgeable and understandable.

Jon

Not my experience, Jon, but I’m sure he is grateful someone stuck up for him.

He chopped up a post I made about how careful I am to post scripture in context so he could reduce me to a stereotype. It’s not the first time someone has pulled this on me on this board. I will prayerfully consider if God wants me in these forums at all.

Part of my reply to a poster I’ve been in conversation with for 3 weeks, who was getting more impudent with me by the day:

Me, I don’t care. I don’t get “angry” or even offended. I forgive and forget so fast that it all is a non-issue to me. But you seem perplexed that a person won’t just lay there and be walked on, and since I had to go back to find scripture, I thought I would help ya out a bit. I think I’ve done well to suffer your lies such as “Always takes one verse makes it work with another verse and trys to make it work for the whole bible” when I make a point of showing all scripture in context. Getting the Truth of the Word of God out is all that matters to me.

Originally Posted by always_gr8ful
Me, I don’t care. … Getting the Truth of the Word of God out is all that matters to me.

If this is the case, always, then you are in the wrong place. CAF is not a venue provided for you to attempt to evangelize all of us poor lost Catholics, or to pursuade us to give up the Sacred Traditions committed to us by the Apostles so that we can embrace a deficient gospel of “bible christianity”, separated from the promises of Christ.

You may wish to consider starting your own web site, then you can invite ignorant Catholics there and try this 'getting the truth out". what you are putting out here will be seen by educated Catholics as a “different gospel” than the one which was committed to us. As such, it must be rejected.

 

[guanophore]

Not my experience, Jon, but I’m sure he is grateful someone stuck up for him.

I don’t doubt that you have had a poor experience with me. In fact, you had no interaction at all until you started insulting my faith, and that of my esteemed colleagues here.

Yes, I am grateful that there are members here who are able to affirm my efforts to defend the faith of the Apostles.

Such affirmation is even more valuable from one who is not Catholic.

He chopped up a post I made about how careful I am to post scripture in context so he could reduce me to a stereotype.

I had to take out a lot of your post because there is a character limit, and I was over it. I left in the section to which I wanted to respond. I was careful to put in the links so that anyone who wished could go back to the original.

I don’t consider you a “stereotype”. I am informing you that the type of anti-catholic rhetoric you are pandering is common here.

It’s not the first time someone has pulled this on me on this board. I will prayerfully consider if God wants me in these forums at all.

This is an excellent idea! I will join you. :byzsoc:

I am certain that it is not God’s will for you to be here attempting to convert us into “bible christians”. If that is your main goal, then you belong elsewhere.

Part of my reply to a poster I’ve been in conversation with for 3 weeks, who was getting more impudent with me by the day:

“…Getting the Truth of the Word of God out is all that matters to me.”

It is all that matters to us, too, always. The difference is that this is a Catholic web site, and we are getting out the Catholic Truth. If you wish to get out something that is not consistent with the teaching of the Apostles, as have been many of your posts, then you need to seek another venue.

 

[always_gr8ful]

The difference is that this is a Catholic web site, and we are getting out the Catholic Truth.

I’ve never stepped foot in the “Catholic” part of this website. Funny me, I thought that “Non-Catholic Religions” was a good place to ask my questions. From your post, it doesn’t take much to see your control issues.

I am certain that it is not God’s will for you to be here attempting to convert us into “bible christians”. If that is your main goal, then you belong elsewhere.

Even after being corrected, you continue…
Well, I wanted to know where Catholics were coming from, and I sure got my answer - a fearful and coercive place where questions about your doctrine cannot be tolerated. Very sad…I’ve been posting on this board for a month, and you managed to undo all the good feelings I had about what was “Catholic”.

adios

 

[CWBetts]

I’ve never stepped foot in the “Catholic” part of this website. Funny me, I thought that “Non-Catholic Religions” was a good place to ask my questions. From your post, it doesn’t take much to see your control issues.

Even after being corrected, you continue…
Well, I wanted to know where Catholics were coming from, and I sure got my answer - a fearful and coercive place where questions about your doctrine cannot be tolerated. Very sad…I’ve been posting on this board for a month, and you managed to undo all the good feelings I had about what was “Catholic”.

adios

Just becuase the forum is 'Non-Catholic Religions" it does NOT givr you the right to say Catholicism is 'from the devil"!!!

 

[guanophore]

I've never stepped foot in the "Catholic" part of this website. Funny me, I thought that "Non-Catholic Religions" was a good place to ask my questions. From your post, it doesn't take much to see your control issues.

Ok. The whole site is Catholic. The non-Catholic section is designed specifically for those topics. I think it might behoove you to visit the parts of the site you consider “Catholic”, if you really are serious about learning.

I am not criticizing your questions. What I have criticized are your uncharitable statements. Questions are what makes this website accomplish it’s goals. It is much easier to provide Catholic Answers when one has a question.

I don’t have any more “control” here than you do. My responsibiliites are to financially support the forum, and to pray daily for those that visit and maintain the site. Believe me, I have plenty of experience violating the forum rules, and being sanctioned for it. That is one reason I encourage those who are breaking them to review them.

…
Well, I wanted to know where Catholics were coming from, and I sure got my answer - a fearful and coercive place where questions about your doctrine cannot be tolerated. Very sad…I’ve been posting on this board for a month, and you managed to undo all the good feelings I had about what was “Catholic”.

adios

It is too bad that you experience of the standards for charitable behaivor to be fearful and coercive. However, you are right that insulting behavior is not tolerated here, from any of us. We are all under the same rules. Walking in love is not about 'feeling good" but about a standard of behavior. Insulting others is not part of that standard. We have all done it at one time or another. If you are not willing to take responsibility for your shortcomings, and correct them, then you will not be allowed to continue posting on CAF. This applies to all members.

May God richly bless you in your spiritual discernment. You will continue to be in my prayers.

 

[JohnVIII]

For me the true Catholic (Orthodox) tradition, passed down from the apostles, is that babies are to be baptized, Chrismated (confirmed), and receive first communion. I don’t understand why the Roman Catholics only baptize babies! All three sacraments are necessary to salvation. If the baby is baptize but dies before he receives holy communion - Jesus said “unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you” - how can you be assured of the salvation of the child?

 

[guanophore]

For me the true Catholic (Orthodox) tradition, passed down from the apostles, is that babies are to be baptized, Chrismated (confirmed), and receive first communion. I don’t understand why the Roman Catholics only baptize babies! All three sacraments are necessary to salvation. If the baby is baptize but dies before he receives holy communion - Jesus said “unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you” - how can you be assured of the salvation of the child?

This is a very good point. The sacraments of initiation used to be given all at once. However, once heresies arose in the early Church, it was necessary to wait for the bishop to ensure a valid sacrament. As the church grew rapidly, there was a wide geographical area to be covered by the ordained. At that point, communion and confirmation in the Latin Rite were separated.

The other point is theological. Jesus commands that all be baptized, but not that they choose this (leaving the possibility for the infant, infirm, etc. to receive on the basis of the faith of their loved ones). Communion and confirmation are self selected. “Take and Eat”, He commands. Those who are not able to elect to take and eat are not held accountable for not doing so.

 

[Contarini]

Oh, Edwin has made it quite clear that he doesn’t care for me because I don’t fit his mold.

I do care for you. I don’t like your ideas, because I believe them to be false and spiritually destructive. I’m sure you think the same about many of my ideas and those of others on this forum. There’s no need to reduce this to a personal “he doesn’t like me” complaint.

Edwin would have us believe that the Bible is written in code that no one is able to understand together.

No, that is not what I have said at all. What I have said is that whenever we read anything or think about anything, we are shaped by all sorts of influences and presuppositions. This isn’t unique to the Bible. The Bible is certainly a more difficult text (and written at a time much more removed from our own) than many that we read. (A driver’s ed manual, for instance, is written in my language by people living in my society for a very limited and technical purpose. It’s still susceptible to interpretation, but much less so than the Bible.) Furthermore, the Bible cannot be rightly read without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is what I take to be the meaning of the passage from 2 Peter that you cite below. It actually refutes your view that you can simply pick up the Bible and interpret it accurately based on your individual apparatus for reading and understanding texts. If you do all the scholarly work necessary to understand an ancient text like the Bible, you will still wind up with something not very certain (witness the huge disagreements among Biblical scholars), and more importantly what you will have will be an interesting ancient text, not the inspired Word of God, unless you read with the mind of the Holy Spirit working through the historic Church.

However, you can disagree with this last part all you like. That won’t change the fact that you as an individual 21st-century person can’t just walk up to an ancient text (in translation at that) and be confident that whatever meaning you come up with is the meaning the author intended. That isn’t because the Bible is “written in code.” It’s because the Bible is a text, and a very ancient text at that written in a culture far removed from our own for purposes (looking at it purely on the human level, since you don’t share my theological premises) that you may not even know about.

That every line is up for grabs to private interpretation - lie straight from the devil to keep those who would know the Truth from the Truth.

Fancy rhetoric like this doesn’t do much to establish the truth of your position, does it?

Edwin is saying that these clear words need interpreting.

All words need interpreting. But of course a text written nearly 2000 years ago in another language which I know only imperfectly (I don’t know if you know any Greek) needs more interpreting than some, even if you leave out the Holy Spirit (which is a bad idea–but hey, it’s your bad idea).

Edwin

 

[Ben_F]

I believe that baptism is not symbolic. Something happens during the sacrament. It’s a free gift. We or our sponsors must believe in this free gift. Children should be baptized in order that they may receive this free gift. They are then one third born again. Later comes the reception of the Holy Body of Christ at the age of reason and by the will of the initiate. You are now two thirds born again. Then confirmation. You are fully born again. It is extremely dangerous for a child not to be baptized as soon as possible. Even our savior insisted it being done to him. The gates of heaven cannot be opened, nor can the holy spirit be received as well as the body of Christ until this mysterious action is taken.