Yes - to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The indented section is quoted from Rom 3:21-26.
Yes. Jesus died a terrible death on the cross to pay for all of our sins, past, present, and future. That’s what His death accomplished — our redemption.
We do. And we also believe that the superabundant merit Jesus won is sufficient to forgive all sin.
Baptism, “which saves you now.” Baptism is efficacious as to our salvation. Not as a ritual bath which merely removes dirt, but, “as an appeal to God for a clear conscience” through the merits of Jesus Christ. As per Titus, “he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit,whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior,so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life” (3:5-7).
We are liberated from the law by dying to it, so we can live in the freedom of Jesus Christ.
As Paul says, “a dead person has been absolved from sin” (Rom 6:7). By being put to death to the law, and sharing in Christ’s death, we are absolved from sin and can then live with Him in newness of life. Verily, “if… we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him” (Rom 6:8).
This is the controlling idea behind both Romans 6 and 7 which I’ve been quoting.
Jesus obtained for us the possibility of forgiveness for our sins, all our sins! He also gives us the ability and means, the Sacraments of Baptism, and Recinciliation, for applying that which He obtained for us.
And, the scriptural basis for the Church’s belief in the need for baptism is found in:
We don’t say it’s Catholic doctrine which requires it. We say it is Christ who requires it.
). They needed the “important” baptism that is referred to in Eph 4:5 (one baptism-the ONE that actually saves us-baptism of the Holy Spirit).And that is why the early Church provided the “Sacraments of Initiation”, which were Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist, all done in succession. If you study early Church history you will see that so we are in agreement, remission of sin, including original sin is at Baptism, and the Holy Spirit came with the “laying on of hands” by the Apostles. We agree, but only say it differently.
You believe that Peter mandated that one must personally believe before Baptism, but if you look at the events during that period of time, you will see whole households, including children and slaves being baptized. He was speaking to adults just after Pentecost which is the part you misunderstood. Baptism of infants has been done throughout all of Church history, and it was only because of the Anabaptists, during the so called Reformation that adult only baptism became popular amongst non-catholics. Also as other posters have said, John’s baptism was not Christian, nor Trinitarian, but was a Jewish ritual cleansing, which could be done whenever needed, and repeated as needed. It was not baptism as we know it and should not be confused.
If you look at only Peter’s speech at Pentecost, you might believe it is unclear whether it is by water or the Holy Spirit. If you look at the rest of the NT you will see it is both, not either or. And where do you get it that baptism required full body dunking; that’s not always the way it was done. Do you think the river Jordan was deep enough for that in all places? It wasn’t. Remember, the middle east was and still is a very arid area. Deep enough water was not always nearby, so what were the Apostles and their successors to do? The CC teaches that imersion, and pouring on of the water are both valid. You can look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers and see they used any water that was available, and no it doesn’t have to be “holy water”. Here again, when our separated brethern discarded 1,500 years of Church history they left so much and had to start their own “traditions”, which traditions many of them seem to rail about so often, but follow nonetheless.It is actually unclear from what Peter says if he means by water or of the Holy Spirit, but when taken in context with the aforementioned passages and many more in the NT, it seems logical that he is talking about the HS variety. Ephesians 4:5 states “one baptism”, yes. But take a look again what Paul said to some disciples in Acts 19 [paraphrased and (notes) mine]
Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered no…So Paul asked “Then what baptism did you receive?” They replied, “John’s baptism (of water!)”. Paul said, "John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (symbolic of our decision for Christ)…He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus and on hearing this they were baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ]
If there was only one baptism, why would they need to be baptized again? Because John’s water baptism was a symbolic death unto Christ (which required the full body dunk but did not require holy water, BTW-but that’s for another thread
I hope I haven’t just hijacked my own thread! I just wanted to put my two cents in on the one vs two baptisms.
Check back on you kids manana! G’nite:yawn:
This is easy.SIf there was only one baptism, why would they need to be baptized again? Because John’s water baptism was a symbolic death unto Christ (which required the full body dunk but did not require holy water, BTW-but that’s for another thread
I hope I haven’t just hijacked my own thread! I just wanted to put my two cents in on the one vs two baptisms.
Check back on you kids manana! G’nite:yawn:
Oh, and, we agree. John’s baptism did not confer the Holy Spirit. But Jesus’ does. We believe baptism does confer the Holy Spirit, by the power of Jesus Christ.
This says they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus… i.e., they received the baptism which Jesus commanded, “baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And they were baptized with water, because first it says they were baptized, and then it says Paul laid his hands on them (v. 6). And so it works in the pattern which the early Church used, and which Eastern Churches continue to use-- to give baptism and then confirmation (the laying on of hands which confers the Holy Spirit) immediately.
Indeed, as I noted before, the baptism of John was a ritual bath. The baptism of Jesus is a sacrament.
It has always been the faith of the Church that adults must believe and repent before they receive Baptism. That’s always been incumbent on those above the age of reason who want to enter the Church. It is another question as to what happens for infants, and Scripture does give evidence that infants are to be accepted for baptism, both by paralleling Baptism to circumcision, which was done on infants, by saying that apostles baptized entire households, and also by the Scripture which you just quoted, which says that, “the promise is for you and for your children.”
I don’t get where you have this idea that John’s baptism is, “symbolic of our decision for Christ.” Honestly. John’s baptism was a ritual bath which was done for repentance so as to, “prepare the way in the desert” for the messiah. So in a sense it was for Jesus… but it’s no more than what I just said. They didn’t explicitly know that it was for Christ until Paul himself taught them. The way Scripture portrays it seems to be, “repent of your sins, and take this baptism, so you may be prepared to accept the messiah when he comes.” And so, naturally, when the disciples of John learn that Jesus is the messiah they immediately want to become disciples of Jesus by being baptized into Jesus.
So do you think that all human beings are automatically saved, regardless of whether they believe or not?
Thats a first. I have never, ever seen anyone refer to it this way. You seriously think Nicodemus really had in mind the water from birth? I don’t think so. And I’d like to see one commentary from any Christian that ever suggested that.
There is no baptism in Judaism. John the Baptist is the first to have practiced it. He baptized only water, but Jesus will baptized all of us with fire. This baptism which Our Lord Jesus grant us can save us. Peter in his Epistles said in 1 Peter 3 Found 2
John knew about Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, and that from Jesus, he will promise us a the Holy Spirit.
Well, Jesus choose the 12 Apostle. After his resurrection, he told His Apostles. “Baptized them in the Name of the Father, and Of the Son, and Of the Holy Spirit.” This task was given to the Apostles from Jesus. John, the Baptist himself was already dead beheaded.
I’m not disagreeing that all baptisms were ritual baths. That’s what makes all the baptisms which come before different from the one Jesus made.
Where do you get all this about John’s baptism? (And I agree it didn’t forgive sins.) I mean specifically the one time symbolic nature of John’s baptism. And I agree John is rather important as a bridge between the Testaments. But in a general sense, doing anything good or repenting of one’s sins is always a preparation for receiving the Holy Spirit. I still don’t see what the whole point of what you’re saying is.
I still don’t get your point here.
Because John the Baptist was the forerunner. It had to be from John. I’m not saying that all ritual baths were identical, nor am I saying that Jesus would have just gone for any one of them. So that all righteousness would be fulfilled, Jesus went to John the Baptist.
It seems to me that it isn’t this way. It surely is a clever way to interpret Scripture, but it isn’t what Jesus means. Besides, from what I’ve heard water wouldn’t be the right word to be used there. (And flesh gives birth to flesh, etc. is just saying that the natural order generates the natural order, and the spiritual order generates the spiritual order, so we need the Holy Spirit to be born of the spiritual order… it’s a reference to the original statement of, ‘born again,’ not to the mother’s womb.)