St. Ignatius who sat of Jesus' lap Matt. 18:3-4 & Mark 9:36 - how can anyone believe that there was a Great Apostacy after the deaths of the Apostles?

[SingleMomMonica]

the Jews did lose their temple only to rebuild it later on (and get destroyed again much later) but the church of Jesus Christ is not a building but a mystical body where Jesus is the head. how can that church be apostatized then? Jesus likened the church to a bride because a man and a wife when they get married become one flesh, just as Christ becomes one with His church. to apostatize the church means to apostatize Jesus Himself, which i believe all believers are in agreement that it can never happen.

as for the woman in revelation, she didn’t disappear, but only went into hiding. if she does represent the Church, didn’t the early Christians went into hiding to escape Roman persecution? early Christians gathered in catacombs and emerged later when Christianity was more accepted and allowed to freely worship in public

Well spoken!

 

[NewSeeker]

Greggy,
Baptism was in each and every case described in the Bible, done by one with authority to a believer who understood that they were individually making a covenant, and the baptism was done by immersion

Hi ParkerD,

I am familiar with each and every case of baptism described in the bible and nowhere does it specifically use the word immersion to describe the rite. I’m not saying that the baptisms weren’t by immersion, but I think you go to far when you use passages that rather suggest that the baptisms probably were performed by immersion and then leap to the conclusion that they must have been by immersion as a matter of official policy. There’s no evidence to support that view. There’s also no evidence to discount the possibility that in some of those cases some method other than full immersion might have been used. The language can sometimes be rather vague (e.g., what exactly is meant by the translated phrase “came up out of the water”?). I agree that Jesus’ baptism probably was by immersion, but there’s no reason to think that that was the only valid method at the time. You’d need 2,000 year old official policy statement from Jesus or one of the apostles to that effect to be sure that you’re correct.

NS

 

[NewSeeker]

Arandur,
In the meantime, perhaps you could explain why in nearly 1,900 years your church hasn’t achieved Zion in a broad way, which would be the condition whereby there are no really, really poor among the people who are members of the church and whereby the people have so much love and forgiveness in their hearts that a feeling of community and of well-being and mutual trust within the whole society allows the kind of peace that the Savior promised He would bring into peoples’ lives as they followed Him, both individually and as a collective body of righteous members of the church?

Why, for example, did the pope appeal to governments to help the poor when he should, it seems to me, be appealing to the members of the church to raise their sights and help the poor themselves and bring about a condition where there are no poor among those very members?

The Pope does make regular appeals to the members of the church through the bishops. If you attended Mass on Sundays, you’d hear the frequent appeals for charitable donations. But to answer your question, the reason why the Church hasn’t yet achieved a Zion state is due to the same factors that explain the failure of the United Order - Joseph Smith’s own attempt at Zion on earth where there are no poor. Explore those factors and you’ll answer your own question.

NS

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
I wanted you to know that I have had time to read both of your posts, but do not have time to respond in detail right now due to other things going on.

Thanks.

In the meantime, perhaps you could explain why in nearly 1,900 years your church hasn’t achieved Zion in a broad way, which would be the condition whereby there are no really, really poor among the people who are members of the church and whereby the people have so much love and forgiveness in their hearts that a feeling of community and of well-being and mutual trust within the whole society allows the kind of peace that the Savior promised He would bring into peoples’ lives as they followed Him, both individually and as a collective body of righteous members of the church?

Your beliefs about “Zion” are flawed. Your assuming they are true and holding up a false standard, never supported by historical understanding of Scripture, to the Church.

See instead the Catholic Church’s teachings (and the basis of those teachings) on the New Jerusalem and the Latter Days, both of which exist now and have since Christ’s coronation as King after His resurrection. When I have more time, I’ll try to provide some links.

On what basis do you think the poor on this earth will be eliminated before the Second Coming, despite Jesus’ words in Mark 14:7 (“The poor will always be with you…”)? Besides, you might also want to read some more history regarding the contributions of Catholic Christianity to peace, charity, academic, lawful, and economic development through the years. A summary can be found in How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, available also on audiobook in many online libraries if you don’t have the time to read it. You can check up on the facts cited in that if you like, as well.

I think the Catholic Church’s contribution to the improvement of the human condition is quite considerable, and it is unparalleled in charity worldwide. Further, the Catholic Church has brought fully 1/6th of the population into the fold of Christ, representing in historical unity of teaching the largest body of believers in the world. When you include the Orthodox, that’s 1/4th the world’s population. When you include most other Christians who rely on the Church’s preservation of the Word of God in the Bible and its early insistence on many core Christian doctrines against heresies, that comes to 1/3rd of the world’s population.

Further, the Church has indeed inspired and supported many communities that would seem to meet your requirements for “Zion.” These are probably most widely represented by the many communities of lay religious (monks, nuns, and professionals in orders like Opus Dei).

Now I know you haven’t had nearly 2000 years, but the Mormons have gotten far in creating Zion and in fact seem to have abandoned its place (Independence) to the RLDS/CoC and Restorationist branches–just some of the many divisions among Smith’s followers.

Why, for example, did the pope appeal to governments to help the poor when he should, it seems to me, be appealing to the members of the church to raise their sights and help the poor themselves and bring about a condition where there are no poor among those very members?

Both/and, my friend–why is it so hard for non-Catholics to get that? Where did the pope ever NOT appeal to members of the Church in the way you suggest? He does that continually, as do the bishops and priests! Far more often than any appeal to governments–which is still really an appeal to members of the Church and their communities, calling those with sufficiently well-ordered and wealthy governments to take on a greater role in providing for the welfare of their citizens, where appropriate. Is that such a bad thing to call for?

Your accusations just don’t stick against the Church. I’m surprised you think they do.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Arandur,
I wanted you to know that I have had time to read both of your posts, but do not have time to respond in detail right now due to other things going on.

In the meantime, perhaps you could explain why in nearly 1,900 years your church hasn’t achieved Zion in a broad way, which would be the condition whereby there are no really, really poor among the people who are members of the church and whereby the people have so much love and forgiveness in their hearts that a feeling of community and of well-being and mutual trust within the whole society allows the kind of peace that the Savior promised He would bring into peoples’ lives as they followed Him, both individually and as a collective body of righteous members of the church?

Why, for example, did the pope appeal to governments to help the poor when he should, it seems to me, be appealing to the members of the church to raise their sights and help the poor themselves and bring about a condition where there are no poor among those very members?

Why does your prophet not care about all the people who are not members of the LDS church. It seems to me if he’s the supposed prophet for everyone then the plight of the worlds poor is his concern. Your prophet had no trouble admonishing the world on the family why no concern for the poor?

 

[greggy53]

Greggy,
Baptism was in each and every case described in the Bible, done by one with authority to a believer who understood that they were individually making a covenant, and the baptism was done by immersion and was followed by the gift of the Holy Ghost soon thereafter, which provided the recipient with the opportunity for individual communication from God and for the kind of personal revelation that is not “private interpretation,” but just like “holy men of God spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost,” a person such as yourself can understand the message of the prophets by using the gift of the Holy Ghost and being inspired by the scriptures. .

We have to understand first of all that there is a fundamental difference in what the Church teaches and has always taught about what baptism is and what the Protestant heresies say it is. You do not accept infant baptism because you do not understand what baptism is. With this basic difference in the meaning and nature of baptism then discussion on who should and should not be baptized and for what reasons becomes difficult. I will only add this. That the Holy Catholic Church has deemed it appropriate to baptize children and the Holy Catholic Church has the authority to do so. Jesus gave the Church that authority in person. That authority was not given to any other Church, or individual. Other than that the scriptures do record that “households were baptized”, and that term certainly includes children

But if one mistrusts that process or mistrusts that the Holy Ghost can really be involved in guiding people in their lives, then I guess we differ profoundly on what the New Testament teaches so amply and so well.

We certainly trust the Holy Spirit to guide us in our lives and our faith. We also know for a certainty that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in all matters such as interpretation of scripture, and the administering of the Sacraments including Baptism. When individuals start receiving “revelations”, and special interpretations on their own you end up with over 10,000 different sects and denominations all of whom claim to have the right answers and guidance of the holy spirit.

 

[Arandur]

Hi ParkerD,

I am familiar with each and every case of baptism described in the bible and nowhere does it specifically use the word immersion to describe the rite. I’m not saying that the baptisms weren’t by immersion, but I think you go to far when you use passages that rather suggest that the baptisms probably were performed by immersion and then leap to the conclusion that they must have been by immersion as a matter of official policy. There’s no evidence to support that view. There’s also no evidence to discount the possibility that in some of those cases some method other than full immersion might have been used. The language can sometimes be rather vague (e.g., what exactly is meant by the translated phrase “came up out of the water”?). I agree that Jesus’ baptism probably was by immersion, but there’s no reason to think that that was the only valid method at the time. **You’d need 2,000 year old official policy statement from Jesus or one of the apostles to that effect to be sure that you’re correct. **

NS

And we do actually have nearly 2,000 year old “official policy statements” in the Didache and other early writings near the time of the living Apostles explaining that there are other acceptable forms. This “immersion” requirement is a luxury of the rich, modern West that just doesn’t meet the practicality test. Consider the many arid areas the Gospel was preached, where that much water was very difficult to come by and could not be risked to be fouled by the unwashed (and possibly diseased) bodies of those to be baptized. Or the many agricultural lands where more substantial waters were fouled by wastes and could cause disease in those being immersed (poor sanitation led many cultures to be leery of bathing in such waters, or bathing in general!). It would seem quite out of place with prescriptions for healthy living to perform such things, would it not?
Further, there were those that could not swim; wintertimes without much heat (icy water or just plain ice); the crippled; persecutions that made it difficult to gather around large amounts of water or bring it to one place; and mass baptisms (such as the thousands at a time as recorded in Scripture, which likely were not by immersion due to sheer logistics and time required).

These dispensations made it clear that what was important with regard to the water was that there WAS water used and in a manner of washing (“baptism” was used to denote “washing” more generally at the time of the NT).

 

[ParkerD]

Hello to each of those who have recently posted here. I apologize that I don’t have time right now to respond, but I think you have each given well-thought remarks and I appreciate that and intend to respond, I assume tonight. I think you have each brought up some good points to think about.

Greggy,
I was not putting you off when I wrote what I wrote earlier in response to you. I don’t intend to get into an argument or create contention, so if that’s where you’re headed with any comments, then I don’t intend to “go there.” Have a good day, and I will respond later.

 

[greggy53]

Hello to each of those who have recently posted here. I apologize that I don’t have time right now to respond, but I think you have each given well-thought remarks and I appreciate that and intend to respond, I assume tonight. I think you have each brought up some good points to think about.

Greggy,
I was not putting you off when I wrote what I wrote earlier in response to you. I don’t intend to get into an argument or create contention, so if that’s where you’re headed with any comments, then I don’t intend to “go there.” Have a good day, and I will respond later.

it’s not about arguing at all. You made a statement that teachings were changed from what the early church taught. I asked for your evidence that this took place. If I say the Church said this, or the church did that then I should have the sources ready to back up my contention. That is all I am asking from you.

 

[ParkerD]

the Jews did lose their temple only to rebuild it later on (and get destroyed again much later) but the church of Jesus Christ is not a building but a mystical body where Jesus is the head. how can that church be apostatized then? Jesus likened the church to a bride because a man and a wife when they get married become one flesh, just as Christ becomes one with His church. to apostatize the church means to apostatize Jesus Himself, which i believe all believers are in agreement that it can never happen.

as for the woman in revelation, she didn’t disappear, but only went into hiding. if she does represent the Church, didn’t the early Christians went into hiding to escape Roman persecution? early Christians gathered in catacombs and emerged later when Christianity was more accepted and allowed to freely worship in public

Choy,
I realize that you may think the word “apostasy” has a harsh connotation, but in my mind it means only “departure from the pure doctrinal truth and loss of authority given by God”.

If as you said, “all believers are in agreement that it can never happen” meaning that the “church” (meaning its members, the body of believers or the “bride”) "can never depart from the pure doctrinal truth at any point, then there would absolutely be no need for the word “heresy” or the word “heretical” within any of your religious writings, nor have been any execution of any “heretic” nor any burning of translations of the Bible nor any set of writings that even hint at there being a fear of people departing from the church, because as you say, “it can never happen.”

 

[ParkerD]

Hi ParkerD,

I am familiar with each and every case of baptism described in the bible and nowhere does it specifically use the word immersion to describe the rite. I’m not saying that the baptisms weren’t by immersion, but I think you go too far when you use passages that rather suggest that the baptisms probably were performed by immersion and then leap to the conclusion that they must have been by immersion as a matter of official policy. There’s no evidence to support that view. There’s also no evidence to discount the possibility that in some of those cases some method other than full immersion might have been used. The language can sometimes be rather vague (e.g., what exactly is meant by the translated phrase “came up out of the water”?). I agree that Jesus’ baptism probably was by immersion, but there’s no reason to think that that was the only valid method at the time. You’d need 2,000 year old official policy statement from Jesus or one of the apostles to that effect to be sure that you’re correct.

NS

NS,
It’s OK that you believe that baptism by immersion was not “official policy”. That would mean when Paul spoke/wrote comparing baptism to burial and a “new birth”, and when Christ taught Nicodemus about being “born again”, that they didn’t know what they were talking about and only you know the “official policy.” I simply disagree. I think Christ knew exactly what He was talking about, and Paul also. But you can certainly present the evidence when you explain to the Lord that baptism by immersion, which was meant to signify a covenant made with Him with your entire body becoming “reborn” and then becoming sanctified through the Holy Spirit changing the heart (i.e. being “born of the Spirit”)–was not “official policy” since it was never declared such in the Bible.

 

[TheosisM]

Why does your prophet not care about all the people who are not members of the LDS church. It seems to me if he’s the supposed prophet for everyone then the plight of the worlds poor is his concern. Your prophet had no trouble admonishing the world on the family why no concern for the poor?

And lest we forget Catholic Charities, one of the largest charitable organizations in the world (and the fifth largest charity in the USA).

 

[TheosisM]

NS,
It’s OK that you believe that baptism by immersion was not “official policy”. That would mean when Paul spoke/wrote comparing baptism to burial and a “new birth”, and when Christ taught Nicodemus about being “born again”, that they didn’t know what they were talking about and only you know the “official policy.” I simply disagree. I think Christ knew exactly what He was talking about, and Paul also. But you can certainly present the evidence when you explain to the Lord that baptism by immersion, which was meant to signify a covenant made with Him with your entire body becoming “reborn” and then becoming sanctified through the Holy Spirit changing the heart (i.e. being “born of the Spirit”)–was not “official policy” since it was never declared such in the Bible.

How do you come to such conclusions, that because someone claims that immersion baptism wasn’t official policy that they then believe that Paul and Jesus Christ did not know what they were talking about? Baptism is a new birth, and we are born again through baptism. Catholics literally believe that grace is imparted, and the soul literally receives an irreversible seal or mark, hence the person is born again. How you come to the conclusion that because we don’t believe that immersion was the only way that baptism was done, that we also believe that Christ didn’t know what He was talking about, I can only wonder.

Also, Catholic doctrine does not come from the Bible (though much of it is found there, and all of it is in agreement with scripture, in our view). We do not depend on the Bible to tell us what to believe, though obviously scripture is profitable for learning and doctrines are certainly found in the Bible.

Catholics baptize by both immersion and pouring.

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks.

Your beliefs about “Zion” are flawed. Your assuming they are true and holding up a false standard, never supported by historical understanding of Scripture, to the Church.

See instead the Catholic Church’s teachings (and the basis of those teachings) on the New Jerusalem and the Latter Days, both of which exist now and have since Christ’s coronation as King after His resurrection. When I have more time, I’ll try to provide some links.

On what basis do you think the poor on this earth will be eliminated before the Second Coming, despite Jesus’ words in Mark 14:7 (“The poor will always be with you…”)? Besides, you might also want to read some more history regarding the contributions of Catholic Christianity to peace, charity, academic, lawful, and economic development through the years. A summary can be found in How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, available also on audiobook in many online libraries if you don’t have the time to read it. You can check up on the facts cited in that if you like, as well.

I think the Catholic Church’s contribution to the improvement of the human condition is quite considerable, and it is unparalleled in charity worldwide. Further, the Catholic Church has brought fully 1/6th of the population into the fold of Christ, representing in historical unity of teaching the largest body of believers in the world. When you include the Orthodox, that’s 1/4th the world’s population. When you include most other Christians who rely on the Church’s preservation of the Word of God in the Bible and its early insistence on many core Christian doctrines against heresies, that comes to 1/3rd of the world’s population.

Further, the Church has indeed inspired and supported many communities that would seem to meet your requirements for “Zion.” These are probably most widely represented by the many communities of lay religious (monks, nuns, and professionals in orders like Opus Dei).

Now I know you haven’t had nearly 2000 years, but the Mormons have gotten far in creating Zion and in fact seem to have abandoned its place (Independence) to the RLDS/CoC and Restorationist branches–just some of the many divisions among Smith’s followers.

Both/and, my friend–why is it so hard for non-Catholics to get that? Where did the pope ever NOT appeal to members of the Church in the way you suggest? He does that continually, as do the bishops and priests! Far more often than any appeal to governments–which is still really an appeal to members of the Church and their communities, calling those with sufficiently well-ordered and wealthy governments to take on a greater role in providing for the welfare of their citizens, where appropriate. Is that such a bad thing to call for?

Your accusations just don’t stick against the Church. I’m surprised you think they do.

Arandur,
I had used the words “very, very poor”–not just “poor.” I was talking about common, everyday people, not those in “orders”. I certainly realize the Catholic church does good things in the world. I wasn’t talking about the institutional church nor institutional governments.

The best way for the world to help the poor no longer be “poor” is that each person gains the full blessings of the gospel in their personal life, and begins to live the kind of life that brings their own family the kinds of blessings from heaven that means they are no longer within the ranks of the “poor”. (Not by a government standard definition, but that they would have their basic needs met and would not have children in a home going to bed hungry.)

Zion is not one place in the world, nor two places. It can be any place where the people seek to live by the principles taught by Isaiah in Isaiah 58 and taught by Malachi in Malachi 3, and taught by the epistle of James. It means if the church is involved in helping the poor, that the overhead for doing that is extremely low if there be any overhead cost at all. The government simply does not follow the principles Christ taught about helping a community become a Zion people–nor should governments have that kind of role, for if they do then the people do not have the sincere opportunity to give from their heart because instead the government makes the decision for them.

 

[ParkerD]

Why does your prophet not care about all the people who are not members of the LDS church. It seems to me if he’s the supposed prophet for everyone then the plight of the worlds poor is his concern. Your prophet had no trouble admonishing the world on the family why no concern for the poor?

Zaffiroborant,
If fathers take their role of being the primary provider seriously and with seeking all the help from heaven and from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they can get, plus work as hard as they can without trying to place blame on someone else or an institution, then that means the poor are gradually going to no longer be as prevalent as they are in the world, and those with the tragic situations that do happen can be adequately supported through people with abundance giving from their hearts.

So since the Proclamation on the Family did urge fathers to take their role seriously, then I would say that that was exactly what needed to be said to really, truly help the world’s poor.

 

[ParkerD]

We have to understand first of all that there is a fundamental difference in what the Church teaches and has always taught about what baptism is and what the Protestant heresies say it is. You do not accept infant baptism because you do not understand what baptism is. With this basic difference in the meaning and nature of baptism then discussion on who should and should not be baptized and for what reasons becomes difficult. I will only add this. That the Holy Catholic Church has deemed it appropriate to baptize children and the Holy Catholic Church has the authority to do so. Jesus gave the Church that authority in person. That authority was not given to any other Church, or individual. Other than that the scriptures do record that “households were baptized”, and that term certainly includes children

We certainly trust the Holy Spirit to guide us in our lives and our faith. We also know for a certainty that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in all matters such as interpretation of scripture, and the administering of the Sacraments including Baptism. When individuals start receiving “revelations”, and special interpretations on their own you end up with over 10,000 different sects and denominations all of whom claim to have the right answers and guidance of the holy spirit.

Greggy,
I think the Protestants drew their understanding from the New Testament when they made changes to baptize by immersion and not baptize babies. But of course I realize you would disagree with that.

I have a household. My youngest is twelve years old. The assumption that the word “household” was meant to include infants and toddlers, does not make sense either from reading the entire text of those passages or when considering what Christ taught Nicodemus about being “born again” and taught his disciples about a child being pure.

 

[ParkerD]

And we do actually have nearly 2,000 year old “official policy statements” in the Didache and other early writings near the time of the living Apostles explaining that there are other acceptable forms. This “immersion” requirement is a luxury of the rich, modern West that just doesn’t meet the practicality test. Consider the many arid areas the Gospel was preached, where that much water was very difficult to come by and could not be risked to be fouled by the unwashed (and possibly diseased) bodies of those to be baptized. Or the many agricultural lands where more substantial waters were fouled by wastes and could cause disease in those being immersed (poor sanitation led many cultures to be leery of bathing in such waters, or bathing in general!). It would seem quite out of place with prescriptions for healthy living to perform such things, would it not?
Further, there were those that could not swim; wintertimes without much heat (icy water or just plain ice); the crippled; persecutions that made it difficult to gather around large amounts of water or bring it to one place; and mass baptisms (such as the thousands at a time as recorded in Scripture, which likely were not by immersion due to sheer logistics and time required).

These dispensations made it clear that what was important with regard to the water was that there WAS water used and in a manner of washing (“baptism” was used to denote “washing” more generally at the time of the NT).

Arandur,
I simply disagree. For example, when Elisha asked Naaman (2 Kings 5) to “wash” in the Jordan River seven times, he had leprosy. Your logic would suggest no prophet would have asked for such a thing, since obviously if there was a concern about the kinds of issues you raised, then there would either have been an uproar or at the very least Naaman’s servants would not have suggested he go along with what Elisha had asked him to do. Sorry, I think baptism would have been viewed as a sacred privilege and people would have gone out of their way to have it done by immersion to really portray a “burial” and a “rebirth”. There could certainly have been exceptions made for handicapped who could not be immersed, but that would have been on a rare exception basis.

Breaking ice can be dealt with to do baptisms by immersion. Cold, though.

 

[ParkerD]

How do you come to such conclusions, that because someone claims that immersion baptism wasn’t official policy that they then believe that Paul and Jesus Christ did not know what they were talking about? Baptism is a new birth, and we are born again through baptism. Catholics literally believe that grace is imparted, and the soul literally receives an irreversible seal or mark, hence the person is born again. How you come to the conclusion that because we don’t believe that immersion was the only way that baptism was done, that we also believe that Christ didn’t know what He was talking about, I can only wonder.

Also, Catholic doctrine does not come from the Bible (though much of it is found there, and all of it is in agreement with scripture, in our view). We do not depend on the Bible to tell us what to believe, though obviously scripture is profitable for learning and doctrines are certainly found in the Bible.

Catholics baptize by both immersion and pouring.

TheosisM,
I had never heard of the idea of an “irreversible seal or mark”, but since that brings to mind the book of Revelation, I’m not going to go there.

I think the idea of baptizing infants came from trying to mimic the old covenant, circumcision, with the new way of signifying that a covenant was being made. But the new covenant was supposed to be a new way of entering into a covenant with Jesus Christ, and it was to show a “new birth”, and had nothing at all to do with circumcision.

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM,
I had never heard of the idea of an “irreversible seal or mark”, but since that brings to mind the book of Revelation, I’m not going to go there.

Sorry, this doesn’t make any sense either, and is another illogical conclusion.

Anyway, Catholics and Mormons have fundamentally different understandings of what baptism is and what it does. This is why Mormons “re”-baptize excommunicated people, while Catholics do not repeat baptism ever. Similarly, we do not repeat the sacraments of Confirmation or Holy Orders, since these three sacraments cause a permanent sacramental change in the soul.

I think the idea of baptizing infants came from trying to mimic the old covenant, circumcision, with the new way of signifying that a covenant was being made. But the new covenant was supposed to be a new way of entering into a covenant with Jesus Christ, and it was to show a “new birth”, and had nothing at all to do with circumcision.

Sure, if that’s your belief. It is clear that baptism is the “new” circumcision, and is even equated with it in the Bible.

What makes “believer’s baptism” interesting is that it posits that infants and young children are somehow pure and automatically saved, then suddenly, at some point, they are corrupted and are “unsaved”. This is unscriptural and I have yet to see any writings from the early Christians on anything like this. Nor do we see any uproar about infant baptism if it was a heresy that crept into the Church. This is of course also related to the Biblical and ancient doctrine of original sin (ancestral sin).

Speaking of the Bible, I’m glad you underlined some of my sentences in the post. Catholics do not believe that the Bible is the final authority, nor do we believe doctrines because they are found in the Bible, as sola scriptura protestants do. Catholic doctrine is found in the Bible (explicitly and implicitly), however the source is not the Bible, especially since the early Christians did not have a Bible to say “we believe this because it says it here”. Instead, they were taught by Church leaders, since the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth.

 

[NewSeeker]

NS,
It’s OK that you believe that baptism by immersion was not “official policy”. That would mean when Paul spoke/wrote comparing baptism to burial and a “new birth”, and when Christ taught Nicodemus about being “born again”, that they didn’t know what they were talking about and only you know the “official policy.”

You assume that Paul and Christ thought just like you. You’re reading your LDS viewpoint in between the lines of the actual words on the page. Who knows what Jesus or Paul were thinking in their minds when they mentioned “burial”, “new birth”, and being “born again”. I agree that immersion seems more like a burial than having water poured over your head, but you have no evidence that Jesus and Paul forbade pouring in some instances. I’m sure both Jesus and Paul knew exactly what they were talking about. I just assert that neither you nor I know what they were thinking. The passages you mention don’t mention immersion. They are suggestive of immersion, but that’s it. There are other possibilities. We need an authority to help us interpret those passages correctly. I’m a Catholic; I look to the Magisterium and nearly 2,000 years of unbroken, consistent tradition regarding baptism to help me out with interpretation. You look to a farm boy who incorrectly “translated” some papyri found with a mummy and called it scripture.

I simply disagree. I think Christ knew exactly what He was talking about, and Paul also.

And I don’t think you have any idea what Jesus or Paul were thinking in their minds or that they intended an immersion only policy when they spoke the words we have recorded for us. You have no evidence of this save the word of Joseph Smith.

But you can certainly present the evidence when you explain to the Lord that baptism by immersion, which was meant to signify a covenant made with Him with your entire body becoming “reborn” and then becoming sanctified through the Holy Spirit changing the heart (i.e. being “born of the Spirit”)–was not “official policy” since it was never declared such in the Bible.

Again, you assume that the Lord thinks just like you. But as I’m sure you haven’t personally conversed with Jesus face to face, I wonder then where you get the idea that Jesus was thinking “immersion only” when he spoke. Oh yes, from Joseph Smith. Since none of us were there 2,000 years ago to ask Jesus and Paul whether they intended an immersion only policy, it really does come down to the issue of which authority do you trust.

NS