Symbolic Baptism?

[babylonsfalling]

Are there any verses in the Bible which clearly define Baptism as being symbolic?

Are there any examples of of a person receiving a clearly symbolic Baptism?

 

[Rogare]

The baptism of Cornelius seems to be a good example. He received the Holy Spirit before being baptized:

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tonguesb and praising God.

Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days. (Acts 10:44-48)

 

[Newsy]

I would comment that there is no proof of this baptism being symbolic.

Just because the Lord gave them the Holy Spirit, that doesn’t mean that their souls weren’t cleansed from the stain of original sin. The Catholic Church teaches that Baptism washes away the stain of original sin, there is no proof in Acts 10:44-48 that this wasn’t the case.

The only way to make this text prove “symbolic Baptism” is to use a pretext. You have to assume the Holy Spirit only comes to Baptized believers, this idea is not taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[babylonsfalling]

The baptism of Cornelius seems to be a good example. He received the Holy Spirit before being baptized:

That passage doesn’t establish symbolic Baptism. It just means that Peter ordered a water Baptism even though the people had already received the Holy Spirit. If anything, it establishes GREATER importance on not only Baptism but Baptism with water since that’s the only kind of Baptism being discussed in the verse.

Is that the only passage you have?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’m confused. All the sacraments are symbolic. In baptism, two of the symbols would be that of washing and that of being buried and resurrected with Jesus (the latter comes out more clearly in baptism by immersion, but water being poured or sprinkled over the head is sufficient).

I don’t think the symbolic nature of baptism is controversial in Christianity. What is controversial is the efficacy of baptism.

 

[Rogare]

Well, from a Protestant point of view (the OP made no restrictions), baptism doesn’t wash away sin. Sins are forgiven and washed away by repentance:

Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord (Acts 3:19)

Babylonsfallig, I agree that it potentially establishes greater importance on baptism; I also think baptism is very important!

Newsy stated:

You have to assume the Holy Spirit only comes to Baptized believers, this idea is not taught by the Catholic Church.

Then who does the Holy Spirit come to? What exactly is the Catholic teaching? According to Paul, believers receive the Holy Spirit upon belief:

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13)

Also according to Paul, having the Holy Spirit is a sign of belonging to God:

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him (Romans 8:9)

So in accordance with what Paul says in Ephesians and Romans, Cornelius believed the gospel, received the Holy Spirit (which is evidence of salvation), and was then baptized. If he had the Holy Spirit and therefore belonged to God before baptism, what exactly did the baptism effect?

 

[vwtaylorii]

Are there any verses in the Bible which clearly define Baptism as being symbolic?

Are there any examples of of a person receiving a clearly symbolic Baptism?

John the Baptist baptism was just symbolic.

Sacraments not only gives us God’s grace when He works through the objects being used, but they carry a symbolic nature as well. Rm 6: 1-4 shows the symbolic nature of baptism when we by being buried and raised up from the water, but we receive a new life by living in Christ Body at the same time.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I’m confused. All the sacraments are symbolic. <—Who said all sacraments are symbolic? In baptism, two of the symbols would be that of washing and that of being buried and resurrected with Jesus (the latter comes out more clearly in baptism by immersion, but water being poured or sprinkled over the head is sufficient).

I don’t think the symbolic nature of baptism is controversial in Christianity. What is controversial is the efficacy of baptism.

I don’t remember ever being taught that all sacraments are merely symbolic. Where does that come from?

Are people really getting married or does that sacrament merely symbolize marriage.

Are people partaking of the actual Christ in communion or just symbolically partaking of Christ?

 

[babylonsfalling]

John the Baptist baptism was just symbolic. <—What passage shows that?

Sacraments not only gives us God’s grace when He works through the objects being used, but they carry a symbolic nature as well. Rm 6: 1-4 shows the symbolic nature of baptism when we by being buried and raised up from the water, but we receive a new life by living in Christ Body at the same time.<—The fact that you get a new life is a REAL result and this keeps Baptism from being merely symbolic,

I think “being buried and raised” is just a symbolic way of representing what happens during baptism.
Baptism itself though remains much more than symbolic. You can represent the real effects of Baptism symbolically without making Baptism a symbolic thing.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t think the symbolic nature of baptism is controversial in Christianity. What is controversial is the efficacy of baptism.

Catholics believe that Baptism, like all Sacraments, has symbolic elements, but also imparts a greater reality - they confer Grace in a specific and unique way. Sacraments are complex concepts.

(Most) protestants believe Baptism is ONLY symbolic - it is just a ritual that we do to profess our Christianity. It’s like saying the Pledge of Allegiance to profess our patriotism. To a (typical) protestant, Baptism does not actually DO anything.

Protestant faiths with a Calvanist background (such as Presbyterians, Methodist, Episcopal) are among the minority who do not teach this.

 

[Luke65]

Then who does the Holy Spirit come to? What exactly is the Catholic teaching?

The Church teaches what the Scriptures say: While God is not limited to the Sacraments, they are the ordinary way we receive the greatest gifts of the Holy Spirit. If you read Acts 8, you’ll see that certain people were “saved” (1 Pet. 3:21) by being baptized, however, they had not yet “received the Holy Spirit”. That is because these are two different Sacraments, and the second, the Sacrament of Confirmation can only be conferred by an Apostolic authority - a bishop*.

Your problem is you’re trying to make the exception the rule, even though you see that the Apostle, St. Peter, was “astonished” because God had circumvented the ordinary means of receiving these gifts, which He had taught them.

• A bishop can grant a dispensation for a priest to confer Confirmation; just as, by exception, any baptized Christian can baptize, although it ordinarily must be done by an ordained priest or deacon, like Philip (Acts 5:5-6).

According to Paul, believers receive the Holy Spirit upon belief:

Once again, you’re taking scriptures out of context from the rest of Scripture…

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16)

“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." (Acts 2:38)

“When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:15-17)

These are the ordinary steps for sinners to convert: believe, repent, Baptism, Confirmation. Those who have not sinned, because they have not reached the age of reason, can “immediately” receive the free gift of salvation in Baptism, based on the faith of their parents (Acts 16:33).

Also according to Paul, having the Holy Spirit is a sign of belonging to God:

Correct…

So in accordance with what Paul says in Ephesians and Romans, Cornelius believed the gospel, received the Holy Spirit (which is evidence of salvation), and was then baptized. If he had the Holy Spirit and therefore belonged to God before baptism, what exactly did the baptism effect?

First, yes, Cornelius clearly had received the Holy Spirit, and so his soul must have already been washed clean, as we already see in the Scriptures with the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose soul was created pure, and others. So why did St. Peter baptize him? Because there was still something missing: “the mark of Christ”, as you already quoted (Eph. 1:13). The Church teaches that Baptism leaves an “indelible mark” of our Lord Jesus Christ on the soul, which is why the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be repeated.

Don’t worry, the Catholic Church has studied the Sacred Scriptures for 2000 years and harmonized them in Truth, with the help of the oral Apostolic Tradition as well as the Holy Spirit. Which is why She knows that Baptism is not merely symbolic, it saves us. Because, in His infinite wisdom, “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise” (1 Cor. 1:27), like literally washing our souls with the waters of the Holy Spirit. So stop leaning on your own faulty understanding; put your trust in the Lord, who gave you His Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, against which the gates of Hell will not prevail. And you can see for yourself, after 2000 years, the successor of Peter, to whom Our Lord made the promise, Pope Benedict XVI is right there in Rome, where Peter died a glorious martyrs’ death, shepherding the People of God, proving Our Lord keeps His promises. God bless.

 

[thistle]

Are there any verses in the Bible which clearly define Baptism as being symbolic?

Are there any examples of of a person receiving a clearly symbolic Baptism?

The Baptism of John the Baptist did not forgive sins.

 

[Rogare]

Your problem is you’re trying to make the exception the rule, even though you see that the Apostle, St. Peter, was “astonished” because God had circumvented the ordinary means of receiving these gifts, which He had taught them.

He was astonished that Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. It had nothing to do with God working outside the sacrament of baptism - that’s blatant eisegesis.

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16)

Go ahead and add the other half: “but whoever does not believe is condemned.” Salvation is dependent on whether one believes or not. Please don’t take verses blatantly out of context, leaving off an entire half of the statement.

“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." (Acts 2:38)

I agree that baptism should follow repentance. I have no problem here.

“When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:15-17)

The believers received the Holy Spirit after Peter and John laid hands on them, NOT after baptism. This is certainly another exception to the rule.

 

[TimothyH]

Are there any verses in the Bible which clearly define Baptism as being symbolic?

Are there any examples of of a person receiving a clearly symbolic Baptism?

Anyone insisting that Baptism can only be symbolic and cannot possibly remove sin, must contened with Paul’s recounting of what Ananias said to him as he regained his sight.

Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’ (Acts 22:16)

Rember that Ananias was “a devout observer of the law, and highly spoken of by all the Jews who lived there” (Acts 22:12). Remember that he was adressing Saul who was a zelous Pharisee and an absolute master of Old Testament Scripture. This was a conversation between two devout Jewish Old Testament scholars and one was encouraging the other not to delay in having his sins “Washed away” through baptism.

The Greek word for “washed away” in Acts 22:16 is apolouo. It appears one other time in the Bible…

That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)

Wahsed, sanctified, justified. It’s all right there, one hundred percent consisten with Catholic belief.

-Tim-

 

[babylonsfalling]

You’ve posted a lot a Scripture so far but I’m still not seeing any where it shows that Baptism is merely symbolic.
Do you have any which actually address that point?
Are you a “Scripture Only” guy?

 

[Atemi]

The baptism of Cornelius seems to be a good example. He received the Holy Spirit before being baptized:

Not just Cornelius.

Let’s not forget the “many” that were with him at the time who also received the Holy Spirit before the ritual of water baptism.

The Holy Spirit can only be received by a clean vessel.

What some claim to be an exception, the Lord chose to do among “many.”

…

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I don’t remember ever being taught that all sacraments are merely symbolic. Where does that come from?

Are people really getting married or does that sacrament merely symbolize marriage.

Are people partaking of the actual Christ in communion or just symbolically partaking of Christ?

I didn’t say the sacraments are merely symbolic, I said they are symbolic. That distinction is the point I was trying to make. The symbolic dimension of the sacraments is not in question for most Christians. What is disputed is the efficacy of the sacraments.

We Catholics believe that God accomplishes what the sacraments symbolize.

In baptism, there is a symbol of washing and of the death and resurrection of Christ. I’d say it also simultaneously symbolizes (re)birth. In fact, through baptism we are regenerated in Christ. In Confirmation, the oil provides a symbol of strengthening, since in the ancient world oil was used in medicine and in athletics. In fact, we are strengthened through the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the Eucharist, having separate bread and wine symbolizes the shedding of blood (separation of blood from body), which in turn symbolizes sacrifice. In fact, Christ’s redeeming sacrifice is made present in the Eucharist, re-presented in an unbloody manner. Also, together the bread and wine represent Christ Himself, and God transforms (transubstantiates, in fact) them into Christ Himself. The list could go on. The point is symbolism is a very important part of the sacraments.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I didn’t say the sacraments are merely symbolic, I said they are symbolic. <—That means symbolic in the total sense unless you specify otherwise. That distinction is the point I was trying to make. The symbolic dimension of the sacraments is not in question for most Christians. What is disputed is the efficacy of the sacraments.

We Catholics believe that God accomplishes what the sacraments symbolize. <—God does not “accomplish” marriage or the partaking of Christ without the sacrament. He could if He so willed it but he doesn’t. The sacrament is too key (based on God’s will) to be a symbol.

In baptism, there is a symbol of washing and of the death and resurrection of Christ. I’d say it also simultaneously symbolizes (re)birth. In fact, through baptism we are regenerated in Christ. In Confirmation, the oil provides a symbol of strengthening, since in the ancient world oil was used in medicine and in athletics. In fact, we are strengthened through the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the Eucharist, having separate bread and wine symbolizes the shedding of blood (separation of blood from body), which in turn symbolizes sacrifice. In fact, Christ’s redeeming sacrifice is made present in the Eucharist, re-presented in an unbloody manner. Also, together the bread and wine represent Christ Himself, and God transforms (transubstantiates, in fact) them into Christ Himself. The list could go on. The point is symbolism is a very important part of the sacraments.

The fact that sacraments have no supernatural power without God in the picture does not make the sacrament symbolic.

If you are now changing things to say there can be symbolism within a sacrament, I could go along with that. But even that doesn’t make the sacrament itself symbolic.

 

[Luke65]

He was astonished that Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. It had nothing to do with God working outside the sacrament of baptism - that’s blatant eisegesis.

Well, I misread that verse, and I guess you missed it too. It actually doesn’t say that Peter was astonished but the other Jewish Christians who were with him. Sorry for the confusion! But the point that I was making is true. This event with Cornelius and friends was most certainly the exception to the rule. The general rule is that God does not perform miracles that are visible for all to see. Miracles, as the word is usually used, are by definition the exception to the rule. And this is no different with the gifts of the Holy Spirit:

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)

We should not expect to see any extraordinary signs of the workings of the Holy Spirit. We see charitable works which are fruits of God’s grace, but were probably not going to see tongues of fire, speaking in tongues or any of the other miraculous signs recorded in the Bible. Each of these events had a specific purpose and are mentioned in Scripture, not that we should expect them to happen to us, but as a sign of the power of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which we can and should receive.

But the question is, how do we receive these gifts of the Holy Spirit? And the answer is, the Sacrament of Confirmation, when we “receive the Holy Spirit”, must be conferred by a bishop; while the Sacrament of Baptism, which saves us, can also be given by a priest or deacon. And this is what we see throughout the Scriptures. Where does anyone “receive the Holy Spirit” without an Apostle present? Even when God made this exception with Cornelius and his friends, Peter was right there. And where does anyone baptize in Jesus’ Name who wasn’t ordained by the Apostles? I know of no such examples. Our Lord established the ministerial priesthood (Rom. 15:15-16) for a reason. They have many duties but they all revolve around feeding the flock of the Lord. That is their job, their vocation. And that is why, as a rule, you see them conferring the gifts of the Holy Spirit on the people of God.

Go ahead and add the other half: “but whoever does not believe is condemned.” Salvation is dependent on whether one believes or not. Please don’t take verses blatantly out of context, leaving off an entire half of the statement.

Don’t be ridiculous. I wasn’t talking about condemnation, and neither were you, or anybody else that I noticed. I was talking about the conversion process that Christians went through as recorded in the Scriptures. Please don’t invent a red herring so you can accuse me of taking scriptures “blatantly out of context.”

 

[Rogare]

But the question is, how do we receive these gifts of the Holy Spirit? And the answer is, the Sacrament of Confirmation, when we “receive the Holy Spirit”, must be conferred by a bishop; while the Sacrament of Baptism, which saves us, can also be given by a priest or deacon. And this is what we see throughout the Scriptures. Where does anyone “receive the Holy Spirit” without an Apostle present? Even when God made this exception with Cornelius and his friends, Peter was right there. And where does anyone baptize in Jesus’ Name who wasn’t ordained by the Apostles? I know of no such examples. Our Lord established the ministerial priesthood (Rom. 15:15-16) for a reason. They have many duties but they all revolve around feeding the flock of the Lord. That is their job, their vocation. And that is why, as a rule, you see them conferring the gifts of the Holy Spirit on the people of God.

Cornelius received a gift of the Holy Spirit without confirmation. We read that he spoke in tongues prior to being baptized. According to 1 Corinthians 12:10, speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit. I see no reason why Cornelius’s baptism shouldn’t be normative.

Don’t be ridiculous. I wasn’t talking about condemnation, and neither were you, or anybody else that I noticed. I was talking about the conversion process that Christians went through as recorded in the Scriptures. Please don’t invent a red herring so you can accuse me of taking scriptures “blatantly out of context.”

How am I being ridiculous? You quoted Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” while leaving off the last half. It looked as if you were using this verse to support your thesis that baptism has a salvific effect. I’m relatively certain condemnation (katakrinō: to give judgment against, to judge worthy of punishment) is the opposite of salvation

If I misunderstood your motive in quoting Mark 16:16, then please forgive me. Just don’t jump to insulting me