Baptism and obedience

Repentant sinners were baptized. The thief on the cross repented on the cross. </font>[/QUOTE]I think Sola answered this well. It is interesting that in Revalations 2 and 3 Jesus asks the Churches to repent. Now these are people who have already repented or they would not be a part of the Church. Repentence is an ongoiong thing in life. If it is not for you, you will not grow as a Christian.

 

Two? Yes, love of God and love of neighbor, Luke 10 I think it is, if that is what you are refering to. But those two were a sumation of the 10. If we are loving God we are worshipping him and not having idols and so on. If we love our neighbor we are not lying and cheating and stealing.

John 14:15
"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

This sounds an awful lot like obedience to me. So tell me, do we have to love Jesus to be saved?

 

That's nice Briguy. But can you infallibly say these words "Baptism is absolutely not neccessary". I don't see them anywhere in the Bible so you had better be sure about it or you are leading people astray by your own opinion. By the way, we also crucified Jesus . For it was for each of us and our sins which we are guilty of that he went to the Cross. No sin, no cross. What Peter speaks in Acts 2:38 is for all Christians. Not just the Jews. You say you speak in love and truth. In using those words you had better be 100% sure what you say is truth or it is not love.

Blessings

 

Jason,

Thank you for that analaysis. From a Protestant perspective I can see where you are coming from. If you aren't really sure that what your Church teaches is true what you say makes sense. Of course I do not think that Briguy is speaking out of maliciousness but if he speaks error and it does not lead someone to salvation then what good is it. Truth only saves. If someone is claiming there words are truth (as he did) then he had better be sure. By the way, they are not my statements they were his. I guess I should have quoted the post.

"In Love and Truth,
Brian "

We have a duty in conscience to ensure that we are really speaking the truth. I stand by my words. Brian can believe in his heart of hearts that Baptism is not neccessary for salvation but if it isn't true and he influences someone to be casual about it I see an eternal problem for both souls.

Blessings

Thessalonian

PS Will God say - Well that is not really what the Bible and my Church truly teach is neccessary for salvation but since you convinced the guy that what you said was true, I will let him in anyway? Just askin.

[ May 14, 2003, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

JasonW,

While I understand your points from your Protestant perspective and I don't expect you to understand my Catholic perspective unless God willing he reveals it to you, Catholicism is a completely different entity that Protestantism.

Protestantism is made up of thousands of denominations teaching differing doctrines that conflict and noone has to accept all of what their Church teaches anyway. It is a smorgasboard. You are gauranteed to hold some things in error in this system.

But a key difference in Catholicism is that it is not a menu of beliefs that we can choose from but a choice of a way of life. It is a package deal, like the Bereans who accepted the word readily or the Eunuch who believed what phillip taught him. Of course it takes faith and faith cannot be proven. In my catholic faith I am sure of my beliefs because they are not mine. I see that they have been passed on for 2000 years. The arguements I use today I see in the writings of Cyril and Augustine and Jerome. They are historically consistent and currently consistent (meaning I can go to Austrailia, go to Mass and find people who believe and worship just like me). And the contradictions I read on this board among Protestants confirm it. The unity I see among my Catholic breathern confirm it. Am I 100% sure? I don't see at this point in my life how I could remove a percentage point from it. Is it contradictory to be 100% sure and have faith. No, because I believe things I know I cannot fully comprehend because that is what the Church, which is equal in evidence to scirpture teaches. The Church is not individual men that I follow but the pillar and support of the truth. It is a collective of men teaching Christ's teachings and protecting them from error. When someone is teaching error the Church is the witness that refutes the error (2 Tim 2:2).

The very question at the end that you will not answer and say is too grand must be answered. For without and answer like you say, we should be afraid to speak. I am not because I have the Church and 2000 years of history to back me up. Where I see my teaching not lining up with the Church, I submit to her. I am not continuously pouring over scripture (though I read scripture every day) trying to figure which doctrines on the menu are true (I have not yet found one that does not match what the Bible says when understood in the proper light). Other people's salvation does not come down to my opinion. It cannot. The question of each man's salvation must be answered. There must be ways to know if we are leading someone down the correct path for certain. It is too important to be otherwise.


I know you will not agree with this post. So be it. Only God can open the locked doors. I will pray that you come to a knowledge of the fullness of the truth. In Christ,

Thess

 

Hi Briguy,

I must say one thing. There are not many on this board that it is easy to have a civil conversation with on this board. So I do admire you for that. Last thing first. You are 100% sure that baptism isn't really neccessary. Now I think you will admit that you are not 100% sure that all your scriptural interprutations are correct. So could you do me a favor, could you tell me which of your scriptural interprutations you have wrong? If you can be 100% sure of anything in your sola scriptura system surely you should be able to be 100% sure of everything or at least admit that you don't really know where you are right and where you are wrong and leave it at that. Once again, Catholicism is a package deal and I have not found one thing in it that contradicts scripture so I bought the whole package. As for the way you separate baptism and Jesus, that is a problem. What you are doing is reducing Christianity to a name and ignoring the teachings associated with that name. You cannot separate Jesus from obedience or love or hope or repentence or faith or baptism. By creating dichotomies as you Protestants do (Peter or Jesus as the rock, baptism or Jesus) you are showing that you do not really know the real Jesus for everything in scripture is who he is. He is the WORD made flesh. If you can ever understand this concept, the scriptures will unfold for you like you never imagined. People speak of how the Pope dictates us Catholics. I have to tell you under the confines of the traditions of the Catholic Church I know I am far more free with regard to scriptural interprutation and understanding than any protestant. I say this not to brag but because it is true. Theological constraints are to scriptural understanding as the ten commandments are to freedom of conscience. We become free by true constaints placed on us.

Worship variances? Yes, I know the byzantines do things a bit differently as do the Ukaranian Catholics. I plan to attend a Byzantine service this summer just to see what the differences are. They are in the area of practice however and not doctrine. That I know as a fact.


"To argue that the CC has been consistant throughout time is kind of a stretch considering the doctrines/dogmas that keep being added. But even so the argument I have heard for that is that nothing has changed just more has been revealed. I can accept that from an argument perspective. To say that the age and the size of the tradition makes it right is not a great argument.".
Can you tell me what doctrines are being added because I don't know of any. Praying to saints (include Mary in this category)? Sorry, clear evidence can be seen in the catcombs of the second century, Peter and Paul pray for us. Now today we have allowed that basic doctrine to grow but the basis for what we believe has always been there. The Eucharist? Hands down, real prescence was taught in the first 400 years. Baptismal regeneration? Find me a writer in the first 500 years who denied it? Find me one who didn't tie it to John 3, being born of water and spirit as protestants try to discociate it from. The only way you can do it is by saying "well this guy spoke of baptism but never used John 3 with regard to baptism.". Arguement from silence. Papal infallibility? This perhaps is your favorite since you don't see it explicitly stated until the 1870's. God a question for you. Were the Jews of the Old Testament saved by a man named Jesus Christ and by grace. I don't see that explictly stated anywhere in the OT. Was it true? Definitely. There is no other name by which any man is saved. They looked forward, we look back. Well I hate to tell you this but I am reading a book right now called Upon This Rock, by Steve Ray. And if you look at how the Church operated early on, there is know question that they revered the Bishop of Rome from all over the world and the Church in Rome in general as a model for truth. Irenaus, Ignatius, and even Cyril who many will try and use to deny the papacy, looked toward the Church of Rome and ran things by the Bishop of Rome. Considering that these people didnt have email and meet once a week, I wonder why this was such a widespread practice among the Christian leadership? Stephen in Cyrils time made a declaration regarding baptism by heretics. His decision is still in effect today. Was it something new back then? No, it was a clarification and a final binding decision on what had been done in the past. Was it an addition? Nope. Just a clarification of something that was always believed. If we have a red rubber ball that is what has been revealed to us. Now later if we add to our description the elastic properties and refractive properties of the color read, are we adding doctrines. No, we are coming to a deeper understanding of the one we already have. It is not knew revelation but deeper understanding of what has already been revealed. The Bible is not a static book and it's words will lead you to this deeper understanding if you don't put it in the sola scriptura staightjacket. We do not add doctrine, we make it explicit what has always been believe implicitly.

I am well aware of Paul's words with regard to love and truth and was not offended. It just seems to me that knowing that your understanding of what scirpture says is what has been conjured up in your mind with external inputs from others, I would think you would find it difficult to put it to your words. Especially since you know there are some errors in what you believe scripture says.

Appreciate the dialogue.

Blessings

 

Ahh...Still waiting for an answer! I am really wanting to know what some of you would do.

MEE </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, what do you mean by: "the way it was done according to the scriptures until 325".

Secondly I just did some analysis on my 38 volume CD of the Church fathers and the vast majority (all but one or two out of perhaps 20 or so said it was to be done in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I beleive there was a quote from Cyril or was it cyprian that said in the name of Christ. I saw another that said by the trinitarian formula in the name of Christ. So it is hardly hands down.

Now for the answer you have been waiting for. It is my understanding that a baptism done in the name of Christ or name of Jesus by a ONENESS group would not be accepted in the Catholic Church. First of all it is not the proper form and secondly Oneness is not the proper understandign of the Godhead. I don't know for certain but I would say it is likely the Catholic Church would not view a Oneness religoin as Christian.

Hope that helps.

Blessings

 

First of all, what do you mean by: "the way it was done according to the scriptures until 325".

Secondly I just did some analysis on my 38 volume CD of the Church fathers and the vast majority (all but one or two out of perhaps 20 or so said it was to be done in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I beleive there was a quote from Cyril or was it cyprian that said in the name of Christ. I saw another that said by the trinitarian formula in the name of Christ. So it is hardly hands down.

Now for the answer you have been waiting for. It is my understanding that a baptism done in the name of Christ or name of Jesus by a ONENESS group would not be accepted in the Catholic Church. First of all it is not the proper form and secondly Oneness is not the proper understandign of the Godhead. I don't know for certain but I would say it is likely the Catholic Church would not view a Oneness religoin as Christian.

Hope that helps.

Blessings [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]***Keep in mind that I'm still learning the doctrines of some of the denominations on this board.

As much as I have learned, water baptism was never done, according to the scriptures, in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It was changed by the Catholic Church in 325. Check your encyclopedias or whatever books you choose.

Why would you say that water baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ is not proper? It's how the apostles baptized. BTW, what church fathers are you referring? The ones in the days of the early church all baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Could Peter and the Apostle Paul have been wrong?

Still learning,
MEE [/QB][/QUOTE]

I don't have an encyclopedia handy but while you are at it you might look up Popes. They go all the way back to Peter you know.

Baptism in the name of Jesus is in the authority of Jesus by his death and ressurection he won for us the grace to be made right with God. By his authority he commanded the trinitarian formula in Matt 28. "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). Your Oneness theology causes you to err in this area also. Tell me, do you baptize in the name of Jesus or Jesus Christ? Does your Oneness Church hold our baptisms to be valid?
Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit was practiced from the earliest days.

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).



Tatian the Syrian

"Then said Jesus unto them, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world’ [Matt. 28:18-20]" (The Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).



Hippolytus

"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: ‘Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?’ And he that is being baptized shall say: ‘I believe.’ Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?’ And when he says: ‘I believe,’ he is baptized again. Again shall he say: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?’ The one being baptized then says: ‘I believe.’ And so he is baptized a third time" (The Apostolic Tradition 21 [A.D. 215]).



Tertullian

"After his resurrection he promises in a pledge to his disciples that he will send them the promise of his Father; and lastly, he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the three persons, at each several mention of their names" (Against Praxeas 26 [A.D. 216]).



Origen

"Why, when the Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, does this apostle [Paul] employ the name of Christ alone in baptism, saying, ‘We who have been baptized into Christ’; for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248]).



The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena

"Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, ‘Jesus Christ, Son of God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water.’ And Paul said, ‘We baptize thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.’ After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ" (Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 21 [A.D. 250]).



Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow—when Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?" (Letters 73:18 [A.D. 253]).



Eusebius of Caesarea

"We believe . . . each of these to be and to exist: the Father, truly Father, and the Son, truly Son, and the Holy Ghost, truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth his disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy" (Letter to the People of His Diocese 3 [A.D. 323]).