I
imroc
Guest
So, is it safe to say that a claim from a church that believes that earlier rituals rituals could be used, in their fulfilled state, for New Covenant worship?
- Status
M
mumof5
Guest
Semper Fi:
One scripture, and I can look up the reference, says that once a certain person (or more than one( believed they were baptised since there was a body of water available . This suggests to me that they baptised as the appropriate form was able to be carried out - immersion. There is no suggestion that had a body of water not been available, it would have been acceptable to substitute pouring.
M
mumof5
Guest
No, because we are talking about two entirely different rituals here.
I
imroc
Guest
Honestly, I don’t understand yoru question. It’s probably because I am a bit lightheaded and the reason I am awake right now is because I am feeling ill and cannot sleep. I wish to retire now because I try to go to Mass daily before work and I only have a matter of a few hours to be up and ready
.Can we continue tomorrow?
I
imroc
Guest
I understand that. But based on your statement above and excluding the “sprinkling baptism”, is it safe to say that an old ritual can be fulfilled to be instituted in a newer ritual or even covenant?
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Mum, I have shown you proof that the early Christians did indeed baptize by thrice pouring. Will you concede this? The Didache is one of the earliest Christian documents we have, dating before 100 A.D. I have not heard of a scholar saying it is not a reliable document pertaining to orthodox Christian practices. The Bible simply does not condemn baptizing infants, and the only thing that needs to happen for a valid baptism to occure is a baptism in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Needless to say, the modern Baptist way of baptizing (i.e. wait till someone is 8) and then baptize them in a tub after they have had an altar call is simply unscriptural.
God bless!
M
mumof5
Guest
Poor you. I hope you feel better in the morning and get a good night’s rest.Honestly, I don’t understand yoru question. It’s probably because I am a bit lightheaded and the reason I am awake right now is because I am feeling ill and cannot sleep. I wish to retire now because I try to go to Mass daily before work and I only have a matter of a few hours to be up and ready
Can we continue tomorrow?
I can’t guarantee what tomorrow is going to be like for me in terms of fitting in time here but I can try. The problem I find is that with limited time, I can come back in the morning and find more than 10-20 posts which I don’t have a hope of responding to due to number.
M
mumof5
Guest
I’d think the ritual could change but I;m not sure I’m getting what you are asking…
I
imroc
Guest
Thanks for you pity
Yeah, I agree with tomorrow. But I think I’ve seen you around on the boards regularly. I don’t come as often as others do, but if I do find time tomorrow, I will try to go further with this. Maybe we can restart our talk under a different thread? Have a good night and God bless you!
M
mumof5
Guest
Semper Fi:
And that’s not how the baptist churches in this country operate. Most wouldn’t baptise at 8. Jesus was 30 before he got baptised!
Really, personally, I think it’s us humans that get hung up on these details and God looks at the heart of the person more than whether it’s by immersion or pouring. But I do think unless you are in the desert in a drought, scripture supports immersion as the prefered option. As for the tub, the Bible refers to a body of water more than living water. Obviously in the days of the NT a tub of water would have been rather arduous so going down to a river or sea would have been the easiest option.
Neither does it support infant baptism. We simply don’t know.
And that’s not how the baptist churches in this country operate. Most wouldn’t baptise at 8. Jesus was 30 before he got baptised!
Really, personally, I think it’s us humans that get hung up on these details and God looks at the heart of the person more than whether it’s by immersion or pouring. But I do think unless you are in the desert in a drought, scripture supports immersion as the prefered option. As for the tub, the Bible refers to a body of water more than living water. Obviously in the days of the NT a tub of water would have been rather arduous so going down to a river or sea would have been the easiest option.
M
mumof5
Guest
Yes, i pop in now and then but although I would wish it otherwise, I rarely get time to do more than throw in something small. I really enjoy these kind of discussions so wish I could take part more. I can always PM you and let you know when I’m around. Not likely to be before evening your time though. right now it’s 8.45pm here.Thanks for you pity
Yeah, I agree with tomorrow. But I think I’ve seen you around on the boards regularly. I don’t come as often as others do, but if I do find time tomorrow, I will try to go further with this. Maybe we can restart our talk under a different thread? Have a good night and God bless you!
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Saint Irenaeus:
Mum,
Saint John the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus was with water, our baptism is with the spirit. John the Baptists baptism had no effect, but ones in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit do. You become born from above (better translation than “born again”) at baptism. Baptism is the new circumcision, which is available to both Jew & Greek. Jesus was circumsized when he was 8 days old.
God bless!
N
Nicene
Guest
And what is most interesting is Paul baptizes in the name of Jesus when he meets the disciples of John, who were only baptized with Johns baptism. Paul certainly thought it necessary for some reason. Then he lays hands on them and confers the Holy Spirit.
1: While Apol’los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
2: And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3: And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4: And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”
5: On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
An apostle not believing what baptists believe. Neither does Peter:
20: who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
or Paul to Titus:
5: he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,
The apostles seem to have a different take on Ezekial than baptists/protestants. They don’t refer to the ritual washing that has been pointed out in Ex. 30:17-21; Lev. 14:52; Num. 19:7-19.
However you will note that Christ does parrallel the same for the apostles in John when he washes the Apostles feet yet says:
9: Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” 10: Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you.”
So you are correct that those are symbolic in the OT, yet Jesus seems to believe that something more happened with the apostles because they are “clean all over”. Obviuosly he isn’t referring to dirt because he targets Judas, “but not every one of you.”
It’s hardly likely that Jesus is talking about Judas’ bathing habits.
The apostles liken baptism to Noahs ark which saved 8 people as a type. What was washed away during the flood? All evil. That’s not a washing of dirt or even symbolic. Unless of course one believes the story of Noah is only symbolic.
The biggest question which always stumps me personally is; Why don’t protestants believe Christ really has the power to do these things? i.e. the Eucharist and Baptism. Christ came to earth and became man to give us a bunch of symbols and not the real deal?
Hardly seems likely. God could have stuck with the old covenant and accomplished that. I guess I am just waiting for the day that Christ’s sacrifice also becomes symbolic and not real. It’s the only thing left that hasn’t been turned into a symbol.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
1: While Apol’los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
2: And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3: And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4: And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”
5: On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
An apostle not believing what baptists believe. Neither does Peter:
20: who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
or Paul to Titus:
5: he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,
The apostles seem to have a different take on Ezekial than baptists/protestants. They don’t refer to the ritual washing that has been pointed out in Ex. 30:17-21; Lev. 14:52; Num. 19:7-19.
However you will note that Christ does parrallel the same for the apostles in John when he washes the Apostles feet yet says:
9: Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” 10: Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you.”
So you are correct that those are symbolic in the OT, yet Jesus seems to believe that something more happened with the apostles because they are “clean all over”. Obviuosly he isn’t referring to dirt because he targets Judas, “but not every one of you.”
It’s hardly likely that Jesus is talking about Judas’ bathing habits.
The apostles liken baptism to Noahs ark which saved 8 people as a type. What was washed away during the flood? All evil. That’s not a washing of dirt or even symbolic. Unless of course one believes the story of Noah is only symbolic.
The biggest question which always stumps me personally is; Why don’t protestants believe Christ really has the power to do these things? i.e. the Eucharist and Baptism. Christ came to earth and became man to give us a bunch of symbols and not the real deal?
Hardly seems likely. God could have stuck with the old covenant and accomplished that. I guess I am just waiting for the day that Christ’s sacrifice also becomes symbolic and not real. It’s the only thing left that hasn’t been turned into a symbol.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
C
Celtic_Son
Guest
I was raised pentecostal too. And Della’s answer really describes my feelings. I was supposed to live by the whim of my pastor also.
Some of my Sunday school “teachers” said dreadful things of the Catholic church when I was a small boy that I still believed them until 2 years ago when I met my wife. Thanks to her for opening my eyes to the truth!
R
rciadan
Guest
If you are a fundamentalist, believing in scripture alone, then how is it that you say that accepting God the Fathers Son as your Savior is what makes you a child of God? Where is that in the Bible? Where in the Bilbe is the phrase “accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior”? I’ll save you time. It’s not there. That’s because Jesus is your Lord and Savior whether you accept Him or not! His being the Savior of the universe does not depend on whether you allow it or not.What you need to do is, not accept it, but do something about it, respond to the fact!
What Scripture actually says about how to become a child of God can be found in Romans 6:4, Eph 4:5, Col 2:12, and 1Peter 3:21.
It is the Sacrament of Baptism, which was instituted by Christ, which makes you a child of God. That is what the Bilbe tells us.
A good book to read is Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating. It has a wealth of information that can be checked and verified through independent sources, such as the Scriptures and History.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
OKay, but what does that happen to do with Baptism?!?!? Jeesh!
Notworthy
P.S. I kid, I kid!
M
MaryD7
Guest
I’d like to jump in here and add another good book on this subject is Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie.
amazon.com/gp/product/089870569X/qid=1143200402/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-0580549-1752052?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
amazon.com/gp/product/089870569X/qid=1143200402/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-0580549-1752052?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
A
AquinasXVI
Guest
Excellent question. IMHO he did this for many symphonic reasons. 1. The inauguration of His public life. 2. To give proof and reveal the nature of God—Holy Trinity. Epiphany. 3. To assert the necessity of Baptism. 4. To lead by example. 5. To show that sacraments are real and within the Will of God.
Thanks.
in XT.
A
AquinasXVI
Guest
Semper Fi:
But the Presentation at the Temple clearly show that God gives to the parents the right to consecrate their children to him prior to their self consciousness. The Presentation at the Temple, a Jewish sacrament instituted by God, fulfilled by Christ in the new testament in the form of Baptism.
in XT.
The protestant notion of baptizing at the consent of the person is a Descartean idea…Thought being the primary source of being.
But the Presentation at the Temple clearly show that God gives to the parents the right to consecrate their children to him prior to their self consciousness. The Presentation at the Temple, a Jewish sacrament instituted by God, fulfilled by Christ in the new testament in the form of Baptism.
in XT.
S
slyboots
Guest
My husband and I converted from a mainstream protestant church to the Catholic Church in 1994. We had both prayed for guidance from the Holy Spirit.
We mutually decided that God was sending us to the Catholic Church. We went thru RCIA together and were received together.
Both our children converted as adults as well. My husband’s younger brother and his wife also converted.
Why?Because it is Christ’s Church. If I am faithful to the teachings of the Church, I am faithful to God.
Christ said, “You are Peter. Upon this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”. The Catholic Church is that Church.
We mutually decided that God was sending us to the Catholic Church. We went thru RCIA together and were received together.
Both our children converted as adults as well. My husband’s younger brother and his wife also converted.
Why?Because it is Christ’s Church. If I am faithful to the teachings of the Church, I am faithful to God.
Christ said, “You are Peter. Upon this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”. The Catholic Church is that Church.
- Status