Start of the Non-Denominational church

[rcwitness]

That’s one possible explanation, but I find it a stretch. Also, Aquinas doesn’t go there. He admits that baptism in the name of Jesus occurred in the earliest Church, but says that it is no longer valid. I find that unconvincing.

Just to be clear–I absolutely believe that baptism should use the Trinitarian formula. I simply hesitate to say that baptism in the name of Jesus is invalid baptism. Any other formula clearly is something other than Christian baptism.

Edwin

Hey Edwin,
I found your post on the name Catholic Church and Baptism interesting. I wouldn’t disagree with anything really.

In fact, it touches on one very confusing aspect of the Catholic interpretation of the flesh and blood discourse in John 6. If Jesus is intending to refer to His Mass Eucharist, then how do we acknowledge believers in separated churches can have the life of the Holy Spirit in them?

But as for your reference to Scriptural Baptism in only the name of Jesus, what passages are you referring to? Isn’t there only one instance of this in Acts, where Peter and John were sent in order to Confirm them and lay hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit?

 

[eamonnroma]

I disagree to a certain extent. You will normally find the basic truths of Christianity in every Protestant church (those like Westboro baptist aside). In any that my family have belonged to or attended they were taught Christ crucified, resurrection, assumption into heaven and the promise that Christ will return to collect His believing children.

They may not teach the Real Presence in communion, baptism of babies, and other important doctrines but those members (for the most part) love the Lord with all their heart, soul and mind. This must be remembered as we discuss these churches. They are not just buildings with teachings that do not line up with what Catholics understand as important to salvation but people who are diligent about attending every Sunday, Sunday evenings and Wednesdays keeping themselves in the Word of God.

God bless all!

Rita

I am not sure that we should be baptising babies.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

I am not sure that we should be baptising babies.

I think it’s crucial. Adult converts from Atheism on the whole are rather a rare thing, children have to be raised within a faith, any faith really to be open to the concept of a deity.

Those who aren’t usually just laugh the idea of the supernatural out the door. If you don’t teach them from the beginning they won’t be open to it when they’re older.

 

[rcwitness]

I think it’s crucial. Adult converts from Atheism on the whole are rather a rare thing, children have to be raised within a faith, any faith really to be open to the concept of a deity.

Those who aren’t usually just laugh the idea of the supernatural out the door. If you don’t teach them from the beginning they won’t be open to it when they’re older.

I really like Martin Luther’s beliefs about infant Baptism.
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13a.html

 

[Contarini]

I think it’s crucial. Adult converts from Atheism on the whole are rather a rare thing, children have to be raised within a faith, any faith really to be open to the concept of a deity.

Those who aren’t usually just laugh the idea of the supernatural out the door. If you don’t teach them from the beginning they won’t be open to it when they’re older.

I don’t think that’s true at all. Certainly upbringing has a big impact on one’s later beliefs, but there are quite a few people brought up as atheists who become believers. Joy Davidman, wife of C. S. Lewis, is one example. Lewis himself isn’t, because he was brought up as a Christian, though he became an atheist as a teenager. I agree that this pattern is probably relatively more common among atheists who become Christians, but it’s not universal by any means.

Your view is cynical and not supported by the evidence.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hey Edwin,
I found your post on the name Catholic Church and Baptism interesting. I wouldn’t disagree with anything really.

In fact, it touches on one very confusing aspect of the Catholic interpretation of the flesh and blood discourse in John 6. If Jesus is intending to refer to His Mass Eucharist, then how do we acknowledge believers in separated churches can have the life of the Holy Spirit in them?

But as for your reference to Scriptural Baptism in only the name of Jesus, what passages are you referring to? Isn’t there only one instance of this in Acts, where Peter and John were sent in order to Confirm them and lay hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit?

Actually there are three: Acts 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5. As Oneness Pentecostals like to point out, there are no actually accounts of baptism in which the phrase “baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is found. So advocates of both formulas say that the other formula is an “authority formula” and their own formula is the one to be used verbally.

My own view is primarily shaped by Aquinas (ST 3, Question 66, Art. 6). Not that I agree with him, but that his explanation is unconvincing, and he clearly accepts that people were, in the very early years, baptized using this formula. Probably I’m resting too much weight on this “admission.” Maybe Aquinas just wasn’t aware of the “authority formula” argument and thus felt himself required to come up with a “special exemption” argument due to an overly naive reading of the text. I haven’t looked at the history of exegesis on this point, so I’m not sure how traditional his explanation was (I tend to assume that it was the traditional view, but I may be assuming it hastily).

This really was just a side remark for the sake of precision. Insofar as it’s important to me, it’s because Oneness Pentecostals are, for me, a difficulty in taking a straight “you’re in or you’re out” view of the Church, as many Protestants do. I view them very similarly to the way orthodox Catholics view Protestants–that is to say, I think that their version of the Christian Faith is gravely defective, but I’m unwilling to say that they aren’t Christians at all.

But then, I’d be unwilling to say that my grandmother (may she rest in peace) wasn’t Christian at all, and she wasn’t baptized, period. And there are a few other devout Christians who similarly disregard water baptism entirely.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

Protestants would exclude Catholics and many other Protestants as well from the Church

I would say that from a logical perspective:

Any church that claims that all other churches are false can’t be the true church. That claim would deny God’s sovereignty and ability to save whom He choses - and therefore the church that makes such a claim doesn’t have correct theology.

 

[commenter]

I am not sure that we should be baptising babies.

We tend to forget the supernatural element in the sacraments. Obviously we have to make our own personal responses to it down the road, if we are babies when we are baptized. Churches that don’t baptize babies do not believe in “Sacraments”, other than as social forms.

For instance, most fundamentalists baptize when the youth is a teen. But is that really a totally free choice, when your parents are expecting you, and the others in your age group are more or less supposed to get baptized that year? For that matter, is it really a mature choice? My baptism has meant different things to me in each decade, I think. I am not sure when, if ever, I would be “ready” for baptism - or for Eucharist, or any other sacrament. Holy Communion certainly means deeper things to me now than 55 years ago. Does that mean I wasn’t ready back then?

Baptism is more of a “work in progress”, nurturing sacrament. It is usually part of the family decision, but at the baby age, everything that happens is part of a family decision.

 

[mek42]

I think it’s crucial. Adult converts from Atheism on the whole are rather a rare thing, children have to be raised within a faith, any faith really to be open to the concept of a deity.

Those who aren’t usually just laugh the idea of the supernatural out the door. If you don’t teach them from the beginning they won’t be open to it when they’re older.

I thought that the concept of natural law was supposed to be evident to most. Yet this argument seems to state that the natural understanding for the untaught is that the supernatural is a delusion. I suspect this was not your intent. Where am I going wrong?

 

[Reuben_J]

We tend to forget the supernatural element in the sacraments. Obviously we have to make our own personal responses to it down the road, if we are babies when we are baptized. Churches that don’t baptize babies do not believe in “Sacraments”, other than as social forms.

For instance, most fundamentalists baptize when the youth is a teen. But is that really a totally free choice, when your parents are expecting you, and the others in your age group are more or less supposed to get baptized that year? For that matter, is it really a mature choice? My baptism has meant different things to me in each decade, I think. I am not sure when, if ever, I would be “ready” for baptism - or for Eucharist, or any other sacrament. Holy Communion certainly means deeper things to me now than 55 years ago. Does that mean I wasn’t ready back then?

Baptism is more of a “work in progress”, nurturing sacrament. It is usually part of the family decision, but at the baby age, everything that happens is part of a family decision.

Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door which gives access to the other Sacraments.

 

[rcwitness]

Actually there are three: Acts 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5. As Oneness Pentecostals like to point out, there are no actually accounts of baptism in which the phrase “baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is found. So advocates of both formulas say that the other formula is an “authority formula” and their own formula is the one to be used verbally.

My own view is primarily shaped by Aquinas (ST 3, Question 66, Art. 6). Not that I agree with him, but that his explanation is unconvincing, and he clearly accepts that people were, in the very early years, baptized using this formula. Probably I’m resting too much weight on this “admission.” Maybe Aquinas just wasn’t aware of the “authority formula” argument and thus felt himself required to come up with a “special exemption” argument due to an overly naive reading of the text. I haven’t looked at the history of exegesis on this point, so I’m not sure how traditional his explanation was (I tend to assume that it was the traditional view, but I may be assuming it hastily).

This really was just a side remark for the sake of precision. Insofar as it’s important to me, it’s because Oneness Pentecostals are, for me, a difficulty in taking a straight “you’re in or you’re out” view of the Church, as many Protestants do. I view them very similarly to the way orthodox Catholics view Protestants–that is to say, I think that their version of the Christian Faith is gravely defective, but I’m unwilling to say that they aren’t Christians at all.

But then, I’d be unwilling to say that my grandmother (may she rest in peace) wasn’t Christian at all, and she wasn’t baptized, period. And there are a few other devout Christians who similarly disregard water baptism entirely.

Edwin

First of all, the account of Acts 8 shows that there was something lacking in that Baptism. Not that it was invalid, yet the Father and Holy Spirit was not drawn on within the Baptism, rendering the fullness of the Sacrament unfullfilled. But certainly not to the extent of needing to Baptize anew. But enough to require Confirmation and laying on of hands.

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samar′ia had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The other two instances do lack the specific clarification that the Father and Holy Spirit were indeed called on. I wouldnt assume that they werent, however.

None of these are a means to conclude that we should not Baptize in the more specifies manner which Christ Himself commanded.

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[benhur]

As benhur has pointed out, the capital/small letter distinction didn’t exist in ancient Greek. So that whole line of argument is silly.

On the other hand, I don’t get benhur’s distinction between a “proper noun” and an “adjective.” When we say “the Catholic Church” the word “Catholic” is obviously being used as an adjective. I think benhur means “a proper adjective.” And in English “a proper adjective” means one that is capitalized. Which benhur has admitted ancient Greek didn’t do. So the distinction is dubious.

Historically, from the beginning, “Catholic” meant “the true, universal Church.” But it was always, from the beginning, set in contrast to other groups who claimed to be Christian. In that sense it was always a “proper adjective” and benhur is just plain wrong. The term first appears in Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8, whose heading is “Let nothing be done without the bishop.” In context, this is polemic against various other groups claiming to be Christian in second-century Syria and Asia Minor. He is emphatically not saying, “all those other groups are part of the Catholic Church because they believe in Jesus too.”

Hi,Edwin,

I’ll see if I can wiggle out of just being plain wrong totally, and I do appreciate your frankness. Proper adjective is the much better term as you state, thank you. It presupposes the noun (usually proper, which “church” is not) being defined. (eg “I am Catholic” presupposes a Catholic church. I am “Universalist” as in from the Universal Church.) I see that your contention is that this was the case from the beginning, and am considering your point . An adjective usually differentiates form others, and yet not all are “proper” or capitalized. (I collect red balls, not white or yellow etc). Yet red is not “proper” as is not “ball”). So when universal is used by early folk like Ignatius to describe the church was it because it was it more widespread, and with more consensus, than say the gnostics or some folks in Asia minor, ( leaving out the other adjective “true” for all think they have that) ? I can not get away from seeing the evolving of church and its reflective terminologies , the Way, Christian, to Universal, especially when distinctions had to be made early on (before 107 AD).

Anyways, maybe this will help me, if you can clarify for instance, the Apostles ( or Nicene) creed , and what is the better translation for the " holy catholic church" ? I have seen all sorts of different capitalizing.

To hear many Protestants talk, it means “including everybody”? But every who? Not every human being on the planet, surely? Every Christian? But how then are we defining Christian?

Right . And how does each generation define “universal”, which is really the crux of the matter. Thanks for your historical (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings

 

[commenter]

I would say that from a logical perspective:

Any church that claims that all other churches are false can’t be the true church. That claim would deny God’s sovereignty and ability to save whom He choses - and therefore the church that makes such a claim doesn’t have correct theology.

In many areas of life, the fact that there are various answers that are partially true does not negate the possibility that one answer has the fullest humanly possible truth. The fact that God can work directly without ministering through the Church does not negate possibility that one Church may have the fullest measure of Truth, and the most direct mediation of the Sacraments. God is not limited by his instruments.

 

[Contarini]

I would say that from a logical perspective:

Any church that claims that all other churches are false can’t be the true church. That claim would deny God’s sovereignty and ability to save whom He choses - and therefore the church that makes such a claim doesn’t have correct theology.

That doesn’t make sense at all. On the contrary, the claim that God can’t sovereignly choose one Church denies God’s sovereignty.

The Catholic Church does not claim that God can’t save people outside the bounds of full communion with Rome. The Catholic Church claims that God has chosen one unified Church as the normative means of salvation.

No denial of God’s sovereignty there, at all.

Edwin

 

[Ignatius]

In many areas of life, the fact that there are various answers that are partially true does not negate the possibility that one answer has the fullest humanly possible truth. The fact that God can work directly without ministering through the Church does not negate possibility that one Church may have the fullest measure of Truth, and the most direct mediation of the Sacraments. God is not limited by his instruments.

 

[Ignatius]

who knows when the adjective "catholic’’ became a proper noun.

it was most certainly in common use some time in the first century. By A.D. 105 it was being used in writings that indicate by the use that it was commonly use to refer to the original Church founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[spedteacherita]

All of Protestantism is that way unity of belief is non existent. Honestly its not conducive to that kind of environment anyway.

All of Protestantism is not that way. There are churches who have kept their doctrines and beliefs for hundreds of years. The LCMS and the WELS churches (Protestant churches) stand on their confessionals and have for over 500 years. While we do not agree on many issues we still have Christ as our focal point.

Why such negativism toward other Christians? Can you not discuss how to work with them?

I’m finding it discouraging to come on to the forums lately because of other Christians not respecting their “separated brethren.”

God bless all!

Rita