Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[medwigel]

The early church began in Palestine, medwigel. It is a desert. It is largely devoid of large bodies of water and pools.

Sooooo, what are the Jordan river and the sea of Galilee? Although I haven’t traveled to that part of the world yet I’m pretty sure those are 2 bodies of water in Palestine/Israel.
And where was John the Baptist baptizing people?

And last I checked places like Ephesus (which is in Turkey because I visited there once and I when to what was believed to be the house of Mary the mother of Jesus and guess what was in the courtyard of the house…a baptismal pool), Corinth, Galatia and Phillipi were not in Palestine, and these are all locations were you find the early church and they had their own bodies of water or pools- like the house of Mary.

And wait a minute, earlier today didn’t you post a picture of a baptismal pool and the following link:

I am glad to see full immersion tanks coming back into Catholic Churches.

Are you ok?
Are you having short term memory issues?

 

[medwigel]

Ah got it, you don’t know anything about Bible because you think it’s “ambiguous”, and you just go along with what others say.

Or it can be a sign of a lack of initiative to search for answers and clarification. Basically someone who is satisfied with the status quo.

 

[guanophore]

I am comparing what they wrote and did against what is in the Bible/divinely inspired Word and instruction, and at times those two things don’t hold up; that’s been my argument.

Of course. Your argument is based upon your own perceptions - your own opinion of what Scripture means. It is only natural that it should diverge from what the Apostles believed and taught. Your faith tradition has been separated from the Apostolic faith for at least 500 years. There will be a continual drift away from the One Faith in this case.

The fact that what they were doing was not Biblical, this is why I say they “went off the rails”.

Of course you must believe this. If you were to accept that the Apostles taught things that are not in Scripture, you would have to abandon the modern innovation of Sola Scriptura. This cannot be allowed! Therefore, regardless of the testimony of history, it must be discounted and discarded as having any validity.

Sooooo, what are the Jordan river and the sea of Galilee?

There were baptisms in the Jordan of course, and probably in the sea of Galilee, but this freedom did not last long. Christianity was thought to be a sect of the Jews, and the Jews were dispersed and persecuted when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

The Christians went into hiding, and practice their faith for the next 300 years illegally.

Of course Christians would baptize using full immersion in a pool or other body of water whenever possible, but increasingly, the Sacraments needed to be conducted in secret to avoid persecution.

Or it can be a sign of a lack of initiative to search for answers and clarification. Basically someone who is satisfied with the status quo.

I think you are confused medwigel. Acknowledging ambiguity in Scripture means that a person has searched for answers and clarification and has discovered that it cannot be found. This situation is very unsatisfying for a person who would like things to be clear without ambiguity.

I am curious, you seem so hostile toward Catholicism. What brings you to a place like CAF?

 

[medwigel]

I am curious, you seem so hostile toward Catholicism. What brings you to a place like CAF?

I’m not hostile to Catholicism, I am hostile to ignorance and untruths.

It just seems whenever I point out inconsistencies, many seem to get very defensive and it seems to me when they realize discrepancies do in fact between the Scripture and tradition they are reluctant to acknowledge it and fall back to just saying “well you don’t accept my point of view so you just don’t understand” or I get comments like “you must be young that’s why you don’t understand”.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

I thing you need put the man made traditions aside and read your Bible WITHOUT your preconceived filter and look at the Word with a fresh and unbiased lens.

Is that how the early Church read scripture?

 

[medwigel]

I thing you need put the man made traditions aside and read your Bible WITHOUT your preconceived filter and look at the Word with a fresh and unbiased lens.

Actually yes. The Gospel of Christ was a radical message at that time, some could argue it still is now, and people had to change the way they view and did things in order to accept Christ’s message.
Some had to let go of the lens of their pagan past in order to understand and accept the message of the Gospel.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

Agreed they had to let go of their pagan past. But they did not shut out what they were taught by word of mouth from others before approaching the bible. They were strictly to observe the Apostolic Tradition.

 

[dje101]

Yeah…no.

This is simply saying that we find true life from God and God alone, and that bread isn’t all that we require. If Jesus were asserting sola scripture, one must remember that the NT didn’t exist at the time, so Jesus could have only been referencing the OT. And if that were the case, Protestants are still stuck with the same conundrum as usual: IF Jesus claimed sola scriptura with the OT alone, where did you get the NT? How did they specific books end up together as a part of canon? How do you know they are supposed to be there? Who had the authority to make that decision?

Heck, if anything, I’d say its a closer reference/foreshadowing to the Eucharist than anything else.

 

[Cathoholic]

Medwigel (in post 643) said . . .

Fine, we’ll just ignore historians and theologians who all agree that baptism at that time involved being immersed or submerged during those days

vz71 replied . . .

Sola scriptura would dictate that you must.

Medwigel’s follow-up . . . .

. . . . Once again, do you have anything more to offer than just rhetoric?
Do you have at least one Bible verse that you can offer perhaps to the discussion?
Anything?

Catholics affirm total immersion Baptisms medwigel. OK?

But there is also validity in sprinkling and pouring as well.

Baptism

• Immersion
• Sprinkling
• Pouring

.
The ancient Jews have a law that if they so much as touch a dead person they must be “sprinkled” on the third day and on the seventh day.

When the Rabbis translated the Septuagint, they used the word cognate for “baptize” in the context of sprinkling.

Yet this is a sprinkling rite, . . . . NOT . . . . . an immersion rite.

NUMBERS 19:11-13b, 17-20 (RSVCE) 11 "He who touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days; 12 he shall cleanse himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean; but if he does not cleanse himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not become clean. . . . that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him. . . . . 17 For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water shall be added in a vessel; 18 then a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the furnishings, and upon the persons who were there, and upon him who touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave; 19 and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean. 20 "But the man who is unclean and does not cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD; because the water for impurity has not been thrown upon him, he is unclean.

Likewise in Luke 11. Jesus was criticized (at least interiorly) by a Pharisee for not baptizing or washing before dining.

LUKE 11:37-38 37 While he was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. 38 The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner.

When the Pharisees criticized Jesus for not “washing” or Baptizing (Greek) before eating, do you think the Pharisees were suggesting Jesus should be totally immersed before meal time?

The “wash” here is a baptize cognate.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/11-38.htm

Baptism CAN mean to immerse but the meaning is broader than that.

 

[Cathoholic]

By the way . . .

Cowboy hat tip to Karlo Broussard and Catholic Answers for pointing out the baptism washing connection in Luke 11 above (and to Dr. Scott Hahn for the baptism-sprinkling connection in Numbers 19).

Likewise to our own dmar198 for other details focusing on pouring in Baptism but mentioning sprinkling too. (See more of Dmar198 excellent videos here and here).

I have been to the Jordan River. Like ALL streams and rivers you must come . . . . “UP” . . , to come out of the water in ALL cases.

But this is irrelevant with regards to the type or mode of water baptism Jesus received there (pouring, immersion, or sprinkling).

You would have to . . . . ADD that to Scripture to say it “necessitates” any given mode of Baptism.

(By the way. Jesus’ baptism by St. John the Baptist, at the Jordan was NOT the same as Christian Baptism.

Jesus’ baptism by John, was a prefigurement of Christian Baptism.)

 

[Cathoholic]

EZEKIEL 36:25-27 25 I will SPRINKLE clean WATER upon you,
and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
26 A new heart I will give you,
and
A NEW SPIRIT I WILL PUT WITHIN YOU;
and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you,
and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

The Greek word for “SPRINKLE” prophecied here in Ezekiel 25, is a baptism cognate.

This is in the Rabbinic Greek version of the Old Testament – The Septuagint.

Remember. During the Babylonian exile, many Jews lost the ability to speak Hebrew and generationally never got it back.

We see that occur in 1 or 2 generations frequently today too in America with “home country languages” (if your grandparents came over from Japan, or France, or Germany, or Cameroon, you might ONLY be able to speak English).

Many of these non-Israel area Jews were later deeply Hellenized and dependent upon Greek for their ancient Synagogue services and would have used the Greek Septuagint in Synagogue.

Why? Because of their inability to speak Hebrew.

.

NEHEMIAH 13:23-24 23 In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab; 24 and half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but the language of each people.

.

.

---

.

By the way . . .

The prophecies of Ezekiel regarding the abundant grain that lays no famine is almost certainly a prophecy concerning the Holy Eucharist.

Likewise the prophecy concerning God giving the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant almost certainly (in my opinion anyway) has to do with the FULFILLMENT of the Jewish Festival of First Fruits.

It has to do with the Sacrament that completes your Sprinkling of the Holy Spirit within you.

It has to do with the Sacrament of Confirmation and how that strengthens you for the harvest for that abundant “increase of the field”.

It has to do with the harvest is plenty (but the laborers are few because so many of us are unwilling to put our Catholic Faith which was given to us by Jesus, [“you shall be my people, and I will be your God.”–Ezekiel 36:28b] into evangelism concerning that Harvest).

EZEKIEL 36:25-26, 29-30 25 I will
sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and
a new spirit I will put within you
; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. . . .
28b you shall be my people, and I will be your God.
29 And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses; and
I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you.
30 I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant,
that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations.

 

[Unnamed]

The scripture referred to was the Old Testament since the New Testament was not written yet. The real question is how did Jesus intend us to know what the faith entailed and how to transmit it? He never said look at the Bible. He gave us a teaching, authoritative Church to propagate the faith. “He who hears you hears me. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven ect.”

 

[Sean77]

Actually Christ constantly referred to the scriptures (huh, he pointed people to scripture before they were dogmatically defined by the Council of Trent, interesting in and of itself), and frequently chastised the Pharisees who were sitting on the seat of Moses for observing traditions that rendered the commandments null. In other words, Christ did not hold tradition itself as authoritative over the Word of God. One serves the other. Hence, it is that which is god-breathed that holds authority over that which man creates. The issue here is not that Protestants have jettisoned tradition as a source of authority, the issue is that they have rightly placed it back where it belongs, which is in submission to the Word of God.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

Sola Scriptura - the bible alone is a man-made tradition inaugurated by the reformists.

 

[jlhargus]

Sacrament of Baptism remits sin;

[Eph5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,]

This Scripture has nothing to do with baptism, this is dealing with husbands and wives. Paul is talking about the husband covering his wife by washing with the Word.

Here is the verse in context:

Ephesians 5:25-28 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might [g]sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

JL: How often do you wash your wife in water and then preach the word to her? Your own post in verse 27 tells you Christ is speaking of the Church.

27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

 

[jlhargus]

[Acts22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.]

So they are being told to be baptized and to “call on the name of the Lord”. So clearly the Scripture is telling us that those who are being baptized should be calling on the name of the Lord, and I don’t know of any infant that can call on the name of the Lord. And there is nowhere in this Scripture where it says you can call on the Lord on someone else’s behalf to be saved.

JL: And nowhere in scripture does it say baptize by immersion. As a Protestant I attended several baptisms in different denominations, I have yet to hear any baptized person call on the name of the Lord or say anything.

I was immersed in a river and I said nothing. It is the minister who is baptizing who calls on the name of the Lord, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don’t know about SDA but I would bet when you were baptized SDA you said nothing. If you did what did you say calling on the Lord?

 

[jlhargus]

Acts2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them , repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.]

Again, the end of verse 39 says once again the need to call on the name of the Lord. Is is also saying that the promise of salvation is also for their children as well if their children call on the name of the Lord.

This Scripture does not even mention an act akin to christening.

JL: Yet you admit the promise includes children. You got the part about the promise of salvation is also for their children as well, but you got it wrong about who calls on the name of the Lord. Christening is baptism usually a child.

Again It is the minister who is baptizing who calls on the name of the Lord, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

. . . the issue is that they (Protestants) have rightly placed it (Tradition. Presumably Apostolic Tradition but maybe you mean “traditions of men” as you do not make the distinction here. Hopefully you don’t mean “traditions of men that make void the commandments of God” as that should not be considered) back where it belongs, which is in submission to the Word of God.

(With parenthetical addition mine)

Sean77. What do you think “the Word of God” comprises?

(And since you are defending sola Scriptura, I will ask you to use Scriptural passages–ALL of the pertinent passages. Not just carefully selected ones-- to support your usage of “the Word of God”.)

 

[jlhargus]

JL: Scripture doesn’t say Jesus was baptized by immersion. You are taking immersion from Tradition going outside what you say is your sole authority. Scripture doesn’t mention immersion.

But Jesus was an adult and He did go into a body of water. Fine, we’ll just ignore historians and theologians who all agree that baptism at that time involved being immersed or submerged during those days and we’ll just ignore verse 16 were it says “Jesus came up immediately from the water”

JL: What I put in bold print in your post is exactly how we know immersion was used. That’s what we know as Apostolic Tradition. The mode of baptism is not found in scripture anywhere it is only known by Tradition. You are going outside your sole authority using Tradition.

I don’t disagree Jesus might have been immersed and I don’t disagree the apostles immersed. But scripture never, never teaches a baptism mode. The Church recognizes as valid three modes of water baptism immersion, pouring and sprinkling. Pouring became the mode commonly used after Europe was all Catholic as there were few if any adults who were not baptized as infants. Sprinkling isn’t used as it is hit and miss. Example of where it can be used, if one is in an airplane and it’s crashing they could baptize by sprinkling bottled water on those wanting to be baptized.

we’ll just ignore verse 16 were it says “Jesus came up immediately from the water”

JL: You would have been more credible had you ignored verse 16 being baptism by immersion. It only shows the outlandish gymnastics to which one must resort in order to maintain sola scriptura.

Matthew 3:16 - Bible Gateway View approximately 59 English bible versions on verse 16. He came up from the water

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . . .

Actually Christ constantly referred to the scriptures . . .

.

Do you understand Sean77. . . .

. . . That you have no idea what “the Scriptures” comprise without them being ratified by men with God-given authority? Not mere “opinions” but authority.