T
tabcom
Guest
**I couldn’t agree less with your reasoning.
If you are anyone else would like for me to discuss this in detail, I will do so.**
- Status
If you are anyone else would like for me to discuss this in detail, I will do so.**
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Tell us exactly how you would baptize someone tabcom.
M
MariaG
Guest
Let’s first start with looking at Col 2:12-14My absence has been due to my desire to study the question possed within this thread in more detail. I wish to resume the thread now . . .
**Bishopite . . . IMHO, your assumption that Paul preformed water baptism is not explicitly documented anywhere. **
**I would like to specifically discuss that water baptism was done away with – a tradition that Paul said was ‘nailed to the cross’ (Col. 2:14) AND that the new baptism is spiritual. **
That is, if anyone is interested in discussing it.
To answer my hypothetical question, No, I do not think Paul would preach water baptism if he were alive today.
12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13] And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
14] having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
It would appear to me that baptism is not in fact a legal demand but how God chooses to make us alive and forgive our sins (born again).
Could you please discuss more fully how you come to the conclusion that baptism has been nailed to the cross? As I said, it says we were buried with him in baptism, and where do we go from there? We are raised from the dead, or born again.
God Bless,
Maria
B
Bishopite
Guest
I’m afraid you are not being rational here and it is difficult for me to discuss baptism with you further when you do not want to see the explicit truth about baptism found within the Bible; such as Mt 28:20 where Jesus says to make disciples and baptize, Mark 16:16 which says one must be baptized to be saved. Acts 2:38 where Peter says be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. And many more verses that explicitly say baptism is necessary, therefore if it IS necessary, then it is what Paul not only would do but DID do since it is in harmony with the scriptures written by others who also held to the orthodoxy of the Christian faith.My absence has been due to my desire to study the question possed within this thread in more detail. I wish to resume the thread now . . .
**Bishopite . . . IMHO, your assumption that Paul preformed water baptism is not explicitly documented anywhere. **
**I would like to specifically discuss that water baptism was done away with – a tradition that Paul said was ‘nailed to the cross’ (Col. 2:14) AND that the new baptism is spiritual. **
That is, if anyone is interested in discussing it.
To answer my hypothetical question, No, I do not think Paul would preach water baptism if he were alive today.
Paul said in 1 Cor 1:14-16 that he DID baptize Stephenas’ household so how can you say there is no evidence that Paul baptized?
And as I asked earlier what is the fixation with only Paul?
In your study did you read the Bible and the next generations of Christians, (the early church fathers), those disciples who learned and were taught by the Apostles who were taught by Jesus Himself?
And finally, when one applies philosophical and rational truth to 1 Cor 1:14-16 one can reasonably conclude:
- That Paul DID baptize since it is explicitly mentioned and if he baptized then obviously he would preach baptism.
- Paul baptized infants since the household of Stephenas as most in that day were large since contraception wasn’t practiced by most every Jew, therefore this is implicit truth and implicit truth in theology is recognized in both Protestant and Catholic camps as valid as explicit truth.
Nothing Paul wrote would have contradicted what he did.
Someone just asked a great question…tell us how you would baptize someone?
D
dcdurel
Guest
Of course he would.
Lets start from the beginning of the Gospel, Jesus Christ.
Jesus taught ENTIRELY by Tradition. He did not write a word of scripture.
The apostles had to believe what He taught. That is their faith in Him was based entirely on Tradition, what He did and taught, not what He wrote.
Jesus commanded His apostles to teach and preach the Gospel and those who believed what they taught and preached (Tradition) would be saved. (Mark 16:16)
Thus, salvation comes from believing the Gospel that was handed down in TRADITION.
Thus, salvation comes entirely by Tradition, not by reading scripture.
St. Paul says the same thing. “You are being saved if you hold fast to the Gospel I preached to you”. That is, the Gospel handed down in Tradition.
Paul says faith comes by hearing. He did not say that faith comes by reading. Thus, faith comes entirely by TRADITION.
And hearing what? Hearing the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, (Tradition)
And notice that there is not a single book of the bible, not a single chapter of the bible that claims to give a summary of this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. Thus, salvation cannot come from reading the bible, because the Gospel that saves us is NOT written or summarized anywhere in the bible.
We know exactly the content of the Gospel that St. Paul and the apostles preached and taught, even though it is NOT written in the bible.
Even an athiest can know what the content of this Gospel is. They just learn the beliefs of the Christians who learned from the apostles. And these Christians all were Catholic and the doctrines they believed are the same teachings the Catholic Church teaches today. Thus, the Gospel the apostles taught and preached was the Catholic faith.
B
Bishopite
Guest
S
Sabda
Guest
The Interlinear Bible is AWESOME!!!You may add me to the list of mistrusting not only the NAB, but any English Language Bible.
:bible1:Interlinear Bible :knight2:
I stumbled across this when I found a problem with the Strong’s Concordance. I went looking for a literal translation of the words and stumbled across this. Needless to say I use this to verify Strong’s words.I don’t care for the footnotes in the NAB either.
L
lak611
Guest
Thanks for the link.You may add me to the list of mistrusting not only the NAB, but any English Language Bible.
:bible1:
I , too, have an NAB, but consider it worthless and never use it any more.
T
tabcom
Guest
**I have been examining this point in detail at a new thread I’ve started,
‘The Meaning of Baptism’.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=167415
With respects to you scriptural citations, I intend to address them in detail, after I feel that the above thread has been completely digested.
**
T
tabcom
Guest
K
KofC660
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
1 Cor 1:14-17
14 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga’ius; 15 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. 16(I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) I would like to specifically discuss that water baptism was done away with – a tradition that Paul said was ‘nailed to the cross’ (Col. 2:14) AND that the new baptism is spiritual.
However, I do agree with you, that Jesus changed the custom of water baptism, just as he changed a number of other customs and practices (like harvesting and eating on the sabbath, eating with unwashed hands, fraternizing with Samaritans and women, etc.) Water baptism now is inextricably linked with the baptism of the HS, as Jesus demonstrates at His own baptism.
Jesus was not a proselytite, and was not completing any conversion ritual. Rather, he was converting the Baptism of Repentance, given by John, into a Holy Sacrament linked with the appearance of the HS.
:
It is interesting that you would use a passage about baptism to demonstrate that you believe there is no baptism!
Col 2:8-15
8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him.
Christian water baptism is a circumcision of the heart, made without hands (accomplished by the HS). One goes under the water, being “buried with Christ” then comes up out of the water, symbolizing rising with Christ. At this moment, the person is forgiven, the debt of sin is cancelled, and he is “made alive” (regenerated). This is how Jesus taught water baptism, how He role modelled it for us, and how He commanded us to practice it. This is how the early church practiced it, and all the 1500 centuries following. This type of baptism never existed before Christ (indeed it could not, because He had not yet sanctified the waters of baptism with His own spirit), therefore, it cannot be considered a bond with a legal demand.
14 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga’ius; 15 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. 16(I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) I would like to specifically discuss that water baptism was done away with – a tradition that Paul said was ‘nailed to the cross’ (Col. 2:14) AND that the new baptism is spiritual.
I am not sure, tabcom, with this strong predisposition to the contrary, if you will be open to see this any other way. Something that might help is if you imagined yourself in a high school debate team, and it has been assigned to you to teach that Christian water baptism is the norm. If you were to role play this, you might be able to see it differently. Otherwise, I think your strong prejudice to the contrary will not allow you to perceive this from another point of view.
However, I do agree with you, that Jesus changed the custom of water baptism, just as he changed a number of other customs and practices (like harvesting and eating on the sabbath, eating with unwashed hands, fraternizing with Samaritans and women, etc.) Water baptism now is inextricably linked with the baptism of the HS, as Jesus demonstrates at His own baptism.
Jesus was not a proselytite, and was not completing any conversion ritual. Rather, he was converting the Baptism of Repentance, given by John, into a Holy Sacrament linked with the appearance of the HS.
:
What type of baptism do you think Paul was speaking of, in the letter to Corinthians cited above?
It is interesting that you would use a passage about baptism to demonstrate that you believe there is no baptism!
Col 2:8-15
8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him.
Christian water baptism is a circumcision of the heart, made without hands (accomplished by the HS). One goes under the water, being “buried with Christ” then comes up out of the water, symbolizing rising with Christ. At this moment, the person is forgiven, the debt of sin is cancelled, and he is “made alive” (regenerated). This is how Jesus taught water baptism, how He role modelled it for us, and how He commanded us to practice it. This is how the early church practiced it, and all the 1500 centuries following. This type of baptism never existed before Christ (indeed it could not, because He had not yet sanctified the waters of baptism with His own spirit), therefore, it cannot be considered a bond with a legal demand.
G
guanophore
Guest
I would like you to discuss, in detail, why water was involved in these instances.
G
guanophore
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
It is a good question, but let us not overwhelm tabcom with too many questions at once. He has that one to answer, and he also needs to answer how water baptism was part of the old Mosaic law that has been abolished, and he also has to answer what type of baptism Paul was talking about when he claimed he baptized disciples, and he has to explain why water was involved in the baptism of Jesus, the house of Cornelius, and Philip with the Eunuch. He will have to read and research each of these, so give it time!
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
First off, sorry guys this is yet another question. It’s been bugging me since I started reading this thread.
If tradition is dead, if rituals are dead, If dogmatic statements are dead then why does the OP keep refering to scripture.
Scripture is a part of Tradition.
If Tradition is Dead as the OP claims then there is no scripture either.
You really can’t have it both ways.
If tradition is dead, if rituals are dead, If dogmatic statements are dead then why does the OP keep refering to scripture.
Scripture is a part of Tradition.
If Tradition is Dead as the OP claims then there is no scripture either.
You really can’t have it both ways.
G
guanophore
Guest
tabcom;2452669:
On the other hand, if he DOES examine the ancient Greek, and the Church Teaching, how can he possibly end up with any other conclusion?
I don’t know what by what kind of ecclesiastical community he has been taught, but it seems clear that he has persistently believed in waterless baptism, so it is some sort of antisacramental tradition.
He has no experience or teaching in this area. He does not know yet that it is a Catholic book, written by Catholics, for Catholics!
F
frnate
Guest
Since it was the legal claims of the old covenant which were done away with, the answer to your question is; Paul would preach the dogmas of the new covenant only if he wanted to remain in the Church.
Tradition cannot be either alive or dead, it just is. It is it’s practitioners who must be concerned whether they are alive or dead (in Christ)
Peace,
+N
T
Teflon93
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
- Status