Catholicity key to Church Unity

[Kathryn]

Bob:

So "division vis the communion service of Christ"?

Is that the "key to Church unity"?

The unity in Jesus Christ is His body__the body of Christ___His church.

“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?? Since there is one bread , we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.â€￾ 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

We don't play at being one. The Church is one. The Catholic Church doesn't teach "unity" at the cost of truth. This is why we are not members of the World Council of Churches, where it is agreed upon one church is as "true" and "equal" as another.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Kathryn it seem to me that you are receiving the wine at your mass. One other Catholic said, on this board, that he never did receive the wine during his years in the Catholic Church. The Catholic people that I know around here take pride that no matter which church you attend in another state, that they use the same liturgy and Gospel readings.

You see my problem. Some of you claim you receive both elements in the service of Holy Communion and other Catholics are telling us that they never had the chalice offered to them. There seems to be a division of practice within your branch of the church. Here there appears to us-- a lack of unity as to the official practice within the Roman Catholic Church.

The church that Christ founded was the Apostolic church and not the Roman Catholic Church. There is no Biblical proof that the Apostle Peter was ever in Rome. After his writing of the Epistles he 'went to be with the Lord.' [John 21:18 & II Cor. 5:8 & Philippians 1:23] The Apostolic church died and went to be with Christ; the Roman Catholics die and go to Purgatory.

A lady just stopped at our home with her daughter who in the last year moved her membership to a Lutheran Church in Nazareth. I asked her if she ever received the wine-the blood of Christ in the Roman Catholic Church. She said "Never." She is in her late 30's., and just stopped by here after the Good Friday service.

 

[Eric B]

I don't need to interpret it. Holy Scripture here can't be any clearer.

Luke 24:35
and they were telling the things in the way, and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread ,

You are interpreting it. You're tearing it right out of its context, where we see that they didn't recognize Him for awhile, then at the breaking of bread, did recognize Him. That is clear. Nothing about Him being the bread, because then, as I keep saying, there would be TWO "Flesh"s.

As for the Fathers, we see in John 6, that the Jews take Christ's statement "eat my flesh" literally, and are offended. (thinking it is a gross violation of the Law). Likewise, the church fathers apparently would make the same error; mistaking a spiritual metaphor for some mystical transformation. The first one, Ignatius, is a bit ambiguous, as even his statements "the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ", and "the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" can still be allegorical. "IS" is used this way in Hebrews, regarding Rachel vs. Hagar. (are those two mountains really the flesh of these women?). So as leaders kept calling the bread and wine the body and bllod of Christ, then it began to be understood literally, mystically. Take into consideration all the pagan philosophy and mysticism coming in, it is understandable this would happen. So the next batch of fathers (except Clement) then speak of a "change" in the elements. There is nothing in any of the scriptures on any 'change' of the bread and wine into something else; no mention of Christ or the or the word, or prayer/invocation doing anything to them. It was assumed that as the church sat to eat, they represented the body and blood. This was added as people began teaching a mystical view of the elements. So then by the time of Theodore in the 5th century, now you have a dispute between "symbol" and "is" understood literally. This is how the "ancient catholic church" gradually became the Roman Catholic Church". One may have sprung out of the other, but there was clearly an ongoing change of doctrine and practice. That is why people reject the current Church and do not see it as the "one Church".

But no matter how early they began teaching this, it is not scriptural, and can openly be justified by admittely extrabiblical "tradition". But that is an excuse for men to canonize any unbiblical teaching they come up with.

 

[Kathryn]

Eric: I put the verse in context of the whole story. I had even asked the question why the disciples did not recognize Jesus Christ or remember correctly what they were to remember. I asked why Jesus had called them foolish? It was the breaking of the bread that was the cause, according to them, of them recognizing Jesus Christ and Him opening their eyes. You can claim it was a coincidence, just happened at the same time, if you like.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Eric B,

This is a true understanding as to how this commemoration in Apostolic times evolved into the concept of Transubstantiation. Thanks for the enlightenment and your perception as to how the Christian Church became apostate because of her add-on theology.

 

[Eric B]

OK, I see what you are getting at. They recognized Him as He gave the bread and wine. But still, this does not say that the bread and wine WERE Him, especially as the real "Him" was right there in handing it to them! It does not even say that it was the bread and wine that made them recognize Him. I'm sorry, but that is still reading something into the account. Yes, there is a very importand spiritual significance in the communion. This is what opened their eyes. But this says nothing about any mystical power in or transformation of the elements themselves.

 

[Kathryn]

Eric: I put the verse in context of the whole story. I had even asked the question why the disciples did not recognize Jesus Christ or remember correctly what they were to remember. I asked why Jesus had called them foolish? It was the breaking of the bread that was the cause, according to them, of them recognizing Jesus Christ and Him opening their eyes. You can claim it was a coincidence, just happened at the same time, if you like.

Ray, can you answer the questions. You seem to prefer to distort my words like Eric, so that you don't have to deal with what Holy Scripture says.

 

[Kathryn]

Eric:

Yes, there is a very importand spiritual significance in the communion. This is what opened their eyes.

Thank you. This was my point. I can now see you are not trying to distort what I am saying. Ray, has been telling me what was taking place was not even Communion, but just a normal meal.

 

[Ray Berrian]

I am not surprised with the obsession of some with the words, ' . . . He was known of them in the breaking of bread.' [Luke 24:30 & 35] Roman Catholics focus heavily on the Mass and the Eucharist.

After the resurrection in this chapter you will see that two people the one is named Cleopas and the other person is apparently unnamed in the Bible. Jesus in verse 15 draws near to them and talks to them as they walk toward Emmaus. The next verse tells us that Jesus would not allow them to know that He was the Messiah. Jesus plays dumb with them and asks them about what had happened in the last few days. In verses 25-28 the disguised stranger expounded the deep things of God to these two men. After Jesus' detailed message it is getting later in the afternoon and they ask the stranger to stay with them, [vs. 29] After Jesus was assured that these two heard His highly important message, as they were eating, he then opened their eyes and the Bible says, ' . . . and they (then) knew Him.' [vs. 31]

In verse 30 Luke says that 'He sat at meat with them' these two fellow travelers to Emmaus. The Greek word for 'meat' is {sitometron} meaning 'a grain-measure' or by implication an allowance of food-a portion of meat.' When they reclined with Him (after Biblical style) He blessed and broke the loaf among them. There is no hint of a subtle Holy Communion service in this passage. He later ate fish and honeycomb to prove to the apostles that it was really Jesus. In verse 45 He opened their understanding as to enlightenment of the Scriptures.

Mark the last chapter which is sixteen in verse twelve, St. Mark explains all of the above. Only in this passage it says, that Jesus appeared to these two, Cleopas and the other person as they walked into the country, which was without doubt, Emmaus. To me it is very interesting that the Bible says, that JESUS APPEARED IN ANOTHER FORM unto the two of them. Again, in verse 14 Jesus reclines with the eleven apostles as they eat together. After their meal, He instructs them as to their mission for Him after His ascension into Heaven.

Why did Jesus hid His familiar countenance? Because He wanted them to hear His message and to not focus on the stupendous, miracle of His resurrection. After His message was heard and understood, Jesus revealed Himself to them as they reclined to eat.

He taught them the deeper things of God as to how His death and resurrection was foretold 'and written in the law of Moses, in the prophets and in the Psalms. [Luke 24:44] After all of this He revealed His true countenance and Personhood to His apostles. They finally believed that Jesus had risen from the dead and was alive forevermore.

These two passages in no way suggest a contrived and created service of the Eucharist.

On Maunday Thursday before Good Friday Jesus taught them about the meaning of the Lord's Supper, the service of Holy Communion. He further instructs the Church of Corinth in I Corinthians chapter eleven.

Cleopas and the other person were so excited that they return from Emmaus back to Jerusalem even though it was so late in the day, to tell the apostles all that had happened on the road. On this evening of the resurrection of Christ Jesus appeared in the room where the eleven apostles had gathered.

Ray Berrian, Th.D

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Kathryn:


“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?? Since there is one bread , we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.â€￾ 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

We don't play at being one. The Church is one.

Ok - then all Christian are in fact one - as they each celebrate communion - but then you argue that these Christians should not be "allowed" to celebrate communion "with you".

Obviously then you are using communion as a tool for division - but in a double-speak kind of way.

As for 1Cor 10:16-19

The twist you give to it - makes it appear that demons are capable of continually sacrificing themselves.

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.
16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.
18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?
19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

How do you define "cup of demons" in the context of 1Cor 10 where you also find "cup of blessing"?

As for unity - notice the argument for division you make in your position below.

[/b]
The Catholic Church doesn't teach "unity" at the cost of truth. This is why we are not members of the World Council of Churches, where it is agreed upon one church is as "true" and "equal" as another. [/QB]

You reject the communion service of all non-Catholic churches - true?

So that communion then is the "key to division" as you define it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Eric B:
OK, I see what you are getting at. They recognized Him as He gave the bread and wine. But still, this does not say that the bread and wine WERE Him, especially as the real "Him" was right there in handing it to them! It does not even say that it was the bread and wine that made them recognize Him. ..

Details details Eric ... You are looking at the Bible to get truth and to explain truth.

Though Bible reading is not always welcomed if it is too long -- perhaps the "details" are of some interest here.

Luke 24:

The Road to Emmaus

13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.
14 And they were talking with each other about all these things which had taken place.
15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them.
16 But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him.
17 And He said to them, "What are these words that you are exchanging with one another as you are walking?" And they stood still, looking sad.
18 One of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, "Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?"
19 And He said to them, "What things?" And they said to Him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the sentence of death, and crucified Him.
21 "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened.

In this section we notice these key facts.
#1. These unnamed followers did not proclaim Jesus as Messiah, or Lord, or Son of God, or Savior of the World, Or an atoning sacrifice.
#2. They considered the events of His death to spell doom for all that He claimed.
#3. Sunday is the 3rd day SINCE the events they described had happened ( and they described the arrest and condemnation and torture and death)

Luke 24:
22 "But also some women among us amazed us. When they were at the tomb early in the morning,
23 and did not find His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive.
24 "Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also had said; but Him they did not see."

Notice again – the key details of vs 22-24
#1. The women’s report of the Angels message is not believed.
#2. Christ is not known to these 2 disciples to have appeared to anyone as of yet –
#3. The “todayâ€￾ they speak of – is the day of the resurrection and since early in the morning Christ has been risen.

25 [/b]And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?"
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. [/b]
28 And they approached the village where they were going, and He acted as though He were going farther.
29 But they urged Him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is getting toward evening, and the day is now nearly over." So He went in to stay with them.
30 When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.
31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.

Notice – the key details of vs 25-31
#1. Christ chastises NT post-cross, post-resurrection disciples for unbelief and lack of attention to the “Detailsâ€￾ of God’s Word – the OT prophets.
#2. Christ begins His gospel “proofâ€￾ starting with Moses.
#3. Christ shows clearly – the OT is the “scripturesâ€￾ and relies on “Scriptureâ€￾ for “proofâ€￾.
#4. Christ does not simply “show Himself and say believe whatever I say for I am Godâ€￾ Rather He builds trust in the Word of God for “proofâ€￾.
#5. The disciples do not see Him as the Messiah or as God or as the Savior of the World – and do not even know He is Jesus until He leaves.
#6. The evening meal is not “another Passoverâ€￾ nor is it “another communion serviceâ€￾ where He would say “This is my body broken for youâ€￾ Nothing is mentioned other than praying and preparing to eat food. No focus at all on sacrifice in the food, nor any hint that these disciples “stillâ€￾ thinking of Him as a “That prophetâ€￾ expect to be “biting Christ todayâ€￾.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ray Berrian]

Bob Ryan,

Your post said, 'Originally posted by Kathryn:


Kathryn said, 'Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of
Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of
Christ?? Since there is one bread , we who are many are one
body; for we all partake of the one bread." 1 Corinthians
10:16-17

We don't play at being one. The Church is one.'


Bob said, 'Ok - then all Christian are in fact one - as they each celebrate communion -
but then you argue that these Christians should not be "allowed" to
celebrate communion "with you".

Obviously then you are using communion as a tool for division - but in a
double-speak kind of way.'

Ray is saying, 'The pope calls us 'separated brethren' for ecumenical purposes, so we will return to his one fold. The hypocrisy of his above noted term, is duly noted by you in that we are not welcomed at the altar in a Roman Catholic Church.

I think there is a lot of truth in the fact that whenever God's people receive the elements of Holy Communion we are in fact in His one Body. Many Christian denominations make up the one true church.

I always welcome people who love Jesus to received the body and blood of Christ. I believe in open Communion. I believe the Missouri Lutheran Church has a closed Communion service. I do not know if that rule applies to them today.

 

[Jude]

CATHOLICITY is standing up for the truth and not tolerating error. This how the church defeated Arianism and the other heresies.

Funny, I've never heard THAT definition before...

It is ironic that Jude, a member of the most splintered church in history, is calling for unity on the basis of catholicity!

Actually, Protestantism gets that award...

Was it catholicity for the Anglican Church to adopt the 1552 Calvinist Book of Common Prayer?...

No, that was Cranmer's doing. Most Anglicans I know are NOT Calvinists

The Anglican Church is a breeding ground for error. How? By stating its doctrines so they can be accepted in many different ways.

I suppose in some respects this is true. But the Lord IS cleansing His temple, and for that I rejoice.

 

[John Gilmore]

Ray,

I believe the Missouri Lutheran Church has a closed Communion service. I do not know if that rule applies to them today.

Officially, the policy of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod remains closed Communion. But there are many LCMS churches that practice open communion. I think there is a similar situation in the RC Church with many priests permitting non-catholics to commune.

I don't believe closed communion is a tool for division. Unworthy guests eat and drink damnation unto themselves. But the American culture is driving open communion because churches do not want to appear unfriendly.

[ April 10, 2004, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[Jude]

While not agreeing with the Missouri Synod, I must say at least they understand that they are not 'one' with others...therefore 'closed communion'. The Body of Christ is divided. Jesus' prayer for the Body being 'One' has not been answered since 1054.

I wonder if any theologian/Bible scholar has seen any similarites between this division and the one that existed in Israel/Judah?

 

[Jude]

from another source

"Catholicity Means Identical Faith, Not Identical Form...If the Church is catholic in its very being, and not because of its existence as a world-wide structure,then it follows that the unity of the Church is realized through a shared Faith, and a shared life, not just a shared administration.The early Church did not believe that its doctrine was catholic because it existed everywhere, but because the very nature of Truth is catholic. Its unity was based on Truth, not on form or politics. The Church was one by virtue of its possessing the one, identical, and whole Faith of the Church, not because each Local Church submitted to a central bureaucratic structure.
Oftentimes many modern day Christians tend to think that doctrine is divisive, unnecessary, or even an obstacle to true Christian unity. But a catholic understanding of doctrine leads us to the exact opposite conclusion. Ignorance of the Truth and false beliefs are the hindrances to unity, not encouragements to it. Catholic Truth is whole and entire, and the unity of the church must reflect this reality. 'Fundamentally ... there can never be any unity without truth or any truth without unity.' As the presence of Christ in the Church is indivisible, so the Truth which He embodies within her is likewise indivisible. The Church is catholic precisely because it embodies all Truth and stands "opposed to all forms of particularism and sectarian separatism or heresy which would compromise the Truth.' 'Unity is realized through participation in the one truth ... in Christ. '"

Each Church that has the same Doctrine, the same fullness, the same Divine Life is part of the 'Catholic' faith.

An important 'sign' of Catholicity was see in the early Church practice of not consecrating any Bishop unless other Bishops from other communities came to the Consecration. This didn't mean any other Bishop had 'power' over another, but it did mean that by their presence, they were witnessing to the fact that the faith of this new Bishop was the same as theirs. If the proposed candidate for Bishop did not conform in lifestyle and doctrine, the other churches would not recognize this candidate (and or this church)as part of the 'catholic' faith.
If the Community's leadership, life, and witness were not in conformity with Apostolic practice, the Local Churches on its borders would not recognize it as one of theirs.

 

[Jude]

good thoughts from a Rev. George Florovsky

The first Christians when using the words ‘Ekklisía Katholikí (Ekklhsia Kaqolikh) never meant a world-wide Church. This word rather gave prominence to the orthodoxy of the Church, to the truth of the "Great Church," as contrasted with the spirit of sectarian separatism and particularism; it was the idea of integrity and purity that was expressed. This has been very forcibly stated in the well known words of St. Ignatius of Antioch: "Where there is a bishop, let there be the whole multitude; just as where Jesus Christ is, there too is the Catholic Church" (Ignat Smyrn. 8:2).

These words express the same idea as does the promise: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt 18:19-20). It is this mystery of gathering together (musthrion thV sunaxewV, Mystírion tis sinákseos) that the word catholicity expresses.

Later on St. Cyril of Jerusalem explained the word "catholicity" which is used in the Creed in the traditional manner of his Church. The word "Church" means the "gathering together of all in one union;" therefore it is called a "gathering" (ekklesia, Ekklisía). The Church is called catholic, because it spreads over all the universe and subjects the whole of the human race to righteousness, because also in the Church the dogmas are taught "fully, without any omission, catholically, and completely" (kaqolikwV kai anelleipwV) because, again, in the Church every kind of sin is cured and healed" (Catech. 18:23 (Migne P.G. 33 c. 1044)). Here again catholicity is understood as an inner quality.

 

[Ray Berrian]

John chapter seventeen does not say that the sacrament is the means into grace. The way to grace is found in verse three. The way into the faith is by receiving Christ [John 1:12] and not through baptism or the chalice.

We are one in Christ not because we all agree exactly theologically speaking, but because we love Jesus and He is making us one through His prayer to the Father. Verse eleven is our Lord's prayer to God the Father that those who know Him, [vs. 3] will be made one in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Verse seventeen finds Jesus praying that His truth, the Word of God, will sanctify and purify our hearts and lives. He does not pray for the worldlings but only for His people who love Him.

I think Jude said, that unity has not happen since 1055 or some date like this. The Lord knows that all Christians are not going to march together 'in lock step' with each other. His unity for us in the Holy Spirit is already a fact, because Jesus' prayer to the Father has been heard and already answered. All who love Jesus are one, whether Catholic, Lutheran, Nazarene, Baptist and so on and on. We are already His catholic/universal church.

St. Paul speaks about those who were not orthodox and yet Jesus claims them as His own. [II Timothy 2:17-21] Hymenaeus and Philetus were saved but believed the resurrection was already in the past. God speaking through Paul tells us that though they were one with Christ they were two among others in later centuries who would be a 'dishonor' [20] to His perfection of Divine truth.

There never will be a unity of Divine truth in human congregations and denominations, so don't look for it to happen.

Jesus has made us one in the Godhead because of the power and authority of His prayer in John chapter seventeen.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:


Ray is saying, 'The pope calls us 'separated brethren' for ecumenical purposes, so we will return to his one fold. The hypocrisy of his above noted term, is duly noted by you in that we are not welcomed at the altar in a Roman Catholic Church.

I think there is a lot of truth in the fact that whenever God's people receive the elements of Holy Communion we are in fact in His one Body. Many Christian denominations make up the one true church.

I always welcome people who love Jesus to received the body and blood of Christ. I believe in open Communion. I believe the Missouri Lutheran Church has a closed Communion service. I do not know if that rule applies to them today.

Agreed. Open communion is a good way of recognizing that all are Christians - even though we are in different denominations like RC or Lutheran or Baptist etc.

But even better - it is a way of recognizing "One Gospel" - and that salvation is only through the New Covenant - and that all saved come to God through that ONE door, that ONE plan -- the New Covenant.

It is the RC position that the New Covenant is confined to the Catholic mass, that non-Catholics are not saved under the Bible ordained means of the New Covenant - rather "some other means of grace" has to be invented for non-Catholics outside of the Word of God.

So the good news is that they still accept that non-catholics are saved, the bad new is they reserve the New Covenant for themselves alone.

They propose "Division" even in the Gospel plan of salvation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
...The way into the faith is by receiving Christ [John 1:12] and not through baptism or the chalice...

Of course, Ray, Protestant Churches have DIFFERENT opinions regarding baptism. (My point, exactly). While I would not disagree with 'faith' being a 'touchpoint' with Jesus, I would also say that your view of baptism and Eucharist simply has no-warrant in the early church.

To a man, the ancient Christian bishops and apologists believed that baptism was essential for salvation. Read the following...(from another source)
 
* Tertullian
. . . without baptism, salvation is attainable by none. . . . (Roberts and Donaldson 3:674)
* Cyprian
. . . baptism [is] . . . the saving access to the hope of life eternal, and the divine condescension for purifying and quickening the servants of God. (Roberts and Donaldson 5:382)
* Novatus (ca. A.D. 210-260, bishop of Thamugada)
Although we know that all the Scriptures give witness concerning the saving baptism, still we ought to declare our faith, that heretics and schismatics who come to the Church, and appear to have been falsely baptized, ought to be baptized in the everlasting fountain. (Roberts and Donaldson 5:566)
* Sedatus (ca. A.D. 210-260, bishop of Tuburbo)
Wherefore we must endeavor with all peaceful powers, that no one infected and stained with heretical error refuse to receive the single and true baptism of the Church, by which whosoever is not baptized, shall become an alien from the kingdom of heaven. (Roberts and Donaldson 5:567-568)
* Felix (ca. A.D. 210-265, bishop of Gurgites)
I judge that, according to the precepts of the holy Scriptures, he who is unlawfully baptized by heretics outside the Church, when he wishes to take refuge in the Church, should obtain the grace of baptism where it is lawfully given. (Roberts and Donaldson 5:571)
* Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
Nay, he that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. (Roberts and Donaldson 7:457)
* Justin Martyr
By reason, therefore, of this laver [baptismal font] of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God's people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. (Roberts and Donaldson 1:201)
* Irenaeus
And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he [Christ] said to them, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" [Matthew 28:19]. (Roberts and Donaldson 1:444)
* Hippolytus
If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he [man] is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver [baptismal font], he is found to be also a joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. (Roberts and Donaldson 5:237)
Come into liberty from slavery, into a kingdom from tyranny, into incorruption from corruption. And how, saith one, shall we come? By water and the Holy Ghost. (Roberts and Donaldson 5:237)
* Didymus the Blind (ca. A.D. 313-398)
     Johannes Quasten has said the following about Didymus the Blind:
Didymus, surnamed "the Blind," stands out among the heads of the catechetical school of Alexandria in the fourth century. Born about the year 313, he had lost his sight at the age of four. . . . The high esteem that he won during his lifetime sprang partly from spontaneous admiration for a man who, despite the tremendous handicap of lifelong blindness, amassed an amazing treasure of erudition. . . . He was a veritable prodigy of encyclopaedic knowledge. . . . Athanasius did not hesitate to place him in the highly responsible position of the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria. . . . His best known pupils are St. Jerome and Rufinus. The first mentions Didymus repeatedly as his magister, praises his learning, and testifies to his influence on the divines of his time in the West as well as in the East. The second calls him a "prophet" and "apostolic man." (3:85-86)
     Didymus affirmed that baptism was essential for salvation. Here are a few of the things he said on the subject:
The Holy Spirit as God renovates us in baptism, and in union with the Father and the Son, brings us back from a state of deformity to our pristine beauty. . . . He . . . makes us spiritual men, sharers in the divine glory, sons and heirs of God and of the Father. He conforms us to the image of the Son of God, makes us co-heirs and his brothers, we who are to be glorified and to reign with him. (Quasten 3:98)
     Quasten reiterates the fact that Didymus believed in the necessity of baptism for salvation:
Speaking of the effects of baptism, he [Didymus] mentions both the negative and the positive aspect. . . . Baptism is absolutely essential for salvation. Not even the perfection of a faultless life can make up for it: "No one not regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God and marked with the seal of his sanctification [baptism] has attained heavenly gifts. . . ." He sums up the effects of baptism on the soul as follows: "Thus, renovated in baptism, we enjoy the familiarity of God, in so far as the powers of our nature permit. . . ." (3:98)
* Clement of Alexandria
For thus he [Christ] wishes us to be converted and to become as children acknowledging him who is truly our father, regenerated by water. (Quasten 2:27)
Being baptized, we are illuminated. (Quasten 2:28)
     Quasten notes that "Clement uses . . . the terms seal, illumination, bath, perfection and mystery for baptism" (2:28).
Other Church Fathers
     In his highly respected work entitled Early Christian Doctrines, J. N. D. Kelly summarizes the views of other church fathers on the importance of baptism:
Through baptism, according to Athanasius, man is united with the Godhead; it is the sacrament of regeneration by which the divine image [in man] is renewed. The participant becomes an heir of eternal life, and the Father's adoptive son. For Gregory of Nyssa similarly the baptized person receives God and is in him; united with Christ by spiritual rebirth, he becomes God's son by adoption and puts on the divine nature. Chrysostom speaks of the Christian's having Christ in himself as a result of baptism and so being assimilated to him; stepping out of the sacred bath, the catechumen [religious convert] is clothed with light and, fully regenerated, enjoys the possession of justice and holiness. Cyril of Alexandria states that perfect knowledge of Christ and complete participation in him are only obtained by the grace of baptism and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. . . . According to Theodore, baptism is our second birth, as a result of which we belong to Christ and are associated with the privileges of his glorious life, being his body and his members. (431-432)
     Jeffrey Burton Russell is certainly correct when he observes that among the early Christians "it was universally believed that . . . we obtain the benefits of Christ's sacrifice by baptism" (100).

Many Protestants, reject the necessity of baptism. They view it as incompatible with their belief in salvation through grace by faith alone. However, the fact remains that the Lord's ancient church taught that one could not enter the kingdom of God without being baptized.