? for former Catholics

[Carson Weber]

Hi Jason,

Those commentaries are just written by fallible men promulgating fallible doctrines. I, however, am basing my belief off of the Word of God.

God bless,

Carson

PS - You might want to check this out - http://www.issuesetc.com/resource/journals/kastens.htm - which was written by a Protestant pastor.

[ April 26, 2002, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Jason,

Those commentaries are just written by fallible men promulgating fallible doctrines. I, however, am basing my belief off of the Word of God.

Carson, this is a ridiculous statement.

1. You are fallible, your interpretation is fallible.
2. These men are basing their 'belief off of the Word of God' as well.
3. All doctrines are fallible, save one; the bible. ALL men are fallible. So, any attempt of any man to expound or interpret the bible will inherently be fallible (Yes Carson, even the CC’s attempt to interpret the bible).

PS - You might want to check this out - http://www.issuesetc.com/resource/journals/kastens.htm - which was written by a Protestant pastor.

The topic to which I responded was not about infant baptism, rather salvation through baptism. Some of the information in the links that I provided may have some statements about infant baptism, but they were obviously side notes.

jason

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Jason,

"All doctrines are fallible, save one; the bible."

So only the Bible, which includes the epistle to the Hebrews, is infallible.

"ALL men are fallible."

No men can say or make infallible statements.

"So, any attempt of any man to expound or interpret the bible will inherently be fallible"

Every interpretation of the Bible is fallible.

Your line of reasoning works until this statement is made:

"A man wrote the epistle to the Hebrews."

It also fails when we compare the Didache with Hebrews. Neither Hebrews nor the Didache claim inspiration. We don't know who wrote either text.

Yet, you claim that somehow Hebrews, which was written by a man, is infallible.

How come? How do you know? Did you read both and determine that Hebrews is infallible? Then, your determination is fallible because you're a fallible man.

Do you rely upon someone else to tell you that Hebrews is infallible? Then, this determination is fallible because that man or woman is fallible.

Unless we have an infallible Spirit working somewhere definitively that we can point to and say, "The Holy Spirit is working infallibly through this person or this group of people", then we are resting upon fallible testimony and you might as well be basing your faith on the Book of Mormon.. or the Acts of St. Paul, or the Apocalypse of St. Peter.. or the Gospel According to the Hebrews.

Yet, "ALL men are fallible" Really?

Blessings,

Carson

[ April 26, 2002, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

Do you rely upon someone else to tell you that Hebrews is infallible? Then, this determination is fallible because that man or woman is fallible.

Unless we have an infallible Spirit working somewhere definitively that we can point to and say, "The Holy Spirit is working infallibly through this person or this group of people", then we are resting upon fallible testimony and you might as well be basing your faith on the Book of Mormon.. or the Acts of St. Paul, or the Apocalypse of St. Peter.. or the Gospel According to the Hebrews.

Yet, "ALL men are fallible" Really?

Carson,

Absolutely. Every single person who has ever graced this earth is fallible, save one. What you have attempted to do is exclude faith from this equation. EVERY man/woman is fallible, but I have FAITH in God and I pray to Him to show me His will and His teachings. I have to interpret them, and I can be wrong in the interpretation because I am fallible, but I have faith that God will help me through it.

What you do is put your faith in someone else who has put his or her faith (supposedly) in God. This is great except it can lead to people reading the book of Mormon or lead them to the Muslim faith...or even the CC

.

Another great gift God gave us is the gift of discernment. This is a great gift, but it has to be used wisely and in conjunction with faith. Using these two gifts together is a great way to get to know God.

Yes Carson, all men are fallible, in every matter. That is why you have to use God and His gifts to find the ultimate truth.

So to conclude; my logic was sound. You attempted to catch me in a catch 22 (nice try, no really. Valiant effort). What you didn't take into consideration is that though we are all fallible we do have some ways, if we choose to heed them and use them wisely (which is hard in and of itself), to hopefully find truths. Once you stop searching is when you will grow stagnant and you heart will harden. Once you take someone else's statements as fact without further research, you have already lost the fight.

In Christ,
jason

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Jason,

You wrote, "So to conclude; my logic was sound. You attempted to catch me in a catch 22 (nice try, no really. Valiant effort)."

Yet, you didn't address a word I wrote.

Whether the problem presented represents Joseph Heller's coinage or not, it still exists, and your evasion leaves it begging to be addressed.

Are both, one, or neither of the following statements infallible?

1. The Book of Hebrews is the Word of God.
2. Heb 13:12-13 - "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go forth to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured."

You also wrote, "Once you take someone else's statements as fact without further research, you have already lost the fight."

Have you done further research to see if the Didache is the Word of God? Or, are you simply taking someone else's statements as fact without further research in this regard?

God bless,

Carson

[ April 26, 2002, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi there,
good thing I’m only a student! I take your point about types and fulfilments.

“There is only ONE covenant, not two.”
Is there a new covenant (2Cor 3:6) or is their only one?
Hebrew 8:6 “But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent
than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a
second.
8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I
will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the
hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and
so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord.
10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the
Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be
their God, and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, `Know
the Lord,' for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."
13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming
obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

This does suggest more than one covenant? Equally, if baptism replaced circumcision,
was Paul wrong to circumcise Timothy?

More to the point, we still have the problem that in Galatians, Paul contrasts
circumcision with faith, not with infant baptism, as the means of salvation. I assume you
agree that we are saved through faith (Eph. 2:8), by believing in our hearts and confessing
with our mouths (Rom. 10:9 “because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and
so is saved”). Gal 3:22, “But the scripture consigned all things to sin, that what was
promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”, 3:26, “for in
Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” A baby cannot do this, therefore the
baptism of 3:27 cannot be infant baptism. Is it then the faith of the parents you
appropriate for this? A lot of nominal Catholics get the baby "done" more from
superstition than from any real, active faith. Are such baptisms invalid? Worse still, when
a Christian nurse on her own initiative baptised a sick Jewish baby in the Papal states
back in the 1800s, the Papal police found out about it and kidnapped the child and he was
raised by the Pope (IX), who defended this crime by claiming that the child was,
according to Catholic teaching, now a Catholic. Clearly the parents faith was not an issue
here. Is it then the faith of the priest? Augustine (from memory) stated that as long as it
was done correctly (Trinitarian formula etc.) then even the baptism administered by a
Marcionite was valid. You seem to be left with salvation by correct procedure. As noted,
the New Testament discusses the ideas of salvation by faith or salvation by works. It does
not discuss salvation by descent or salvation by ritual.

I think you underestimate both the newness and the essential nature of the New
Covenant. Colossians 1:27 “To them God chose to make known how great among the
Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of
glory.”

The New Covenant is distinguished by the indwelling of God in the heart of each
believer, on a personal relationship between God and his child. (Jer 31:31-32). Two
things follow from this: firstly, the new believers in Acts didn’t say,” stay with your KJ
Paul, I like the Old better.” The reality of intimate fellowship with God blew them away.
They were on fire to spread the good news of forgiveness and adoption. They would have
loved being able to share it with their children also, so when they reached an appropriate
age, they also could follow their saviour through the waters of baptism.
Secondly, because of its essential nature as a personal, indwelling relationship, the New
Covenant cannot exist as a vicarious relationship. “I know Jesus personally simply
because my parents know him” doesn’t make sense.

“Study carefully Matthew 21: 33-46 and you will see this. In the parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen, Christ prophesies the coming destruction of the Hebrew nation in AD70.
According to the parable, this is the time that the covenant is taken from the Jews and
given to the Church”
Matthew 21:33-46 does not concern the destruction of the Hebrew people, or their
rejection by God. The vineyard is Israel, (Isaiah 5:7) the tenants are identified by the text
itself as the chief priests and Pharisees (21:45), not the Jewish people as such. See
Romans 11:1, Acts 28:20. Likewise, in Luke 13:6it is the fig tree in the vineyard (not the
vines in the vineyard) which are under threat.

“You also might want to consider 1 Tim. 3:15 and ask yourself how an unseen and
spiritual Church can be the "pillar and ground of truth" when no one can either see or
hear it? “
We have not come to a mountain that can be touched (Hebrews 12:18) but to the
heavenly Jerusalem, which we do not yet see. We live by faith, not by what we see
(Hebrews 11:1). Our hopes, joys, citizenship and treasures are in heaven, not in fine
palaces and worldly pomp. The faithful went about in animal skins, of whom the world
was not worthy because they looked for a better home.

I must confess that I do not find the voice of Jesus in "the work of the ordinary
Magisterium and the popes in council through the ages."

Enjoying and learning through the discussion, Colin
PS, As a Christian, I love the Lord. His Spirit indwells me and teaches me, I worship Him in spirit and in truth, and enjoy fellowship with other believers. I feel utterly secure in my relationship with God, and utterly complete in it. For me, my baptism was a very special day, where I could follow my Lord in Baptism, and proclaim the inner reality (death to self, risen only through His ressurection, alive to serve Him) of my life. I am intensly glad that my parents, who taught me to love Jesus, did not pre-empt or forclose on my own ability to follow this command of Jesus.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Colin,

In Romans, after Paul tells us about how death remains for all those under Adam and how grace and righteousness are given to all those in Christ Jesus, how does Paul tell us to get out of the old and into the new?

*Hint* - He goes right into "how" throughout Chapter 6. And what does 6 begin with?

Baptism.

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin."

It's through baptism that we're buried into Christ's death. We're united in "a death like his" in baptism, and this sacrament gives us the power to "walk in newness of life", for we're "no longer enslaved to sin".

Later in verse 22, Paul tells us, "the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life."

Is sanctification's end eternal life or is justification's end eternal life for the Baptist? And, what is sanctification other than the growth in holiness? Yet, this holiness has as its end eternal life.. Paul's sounding a wee bit Catholic.

God bless,

Carson

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi there,
I think we are making progress! Baptism is inded a great way of proclaiming the way of salvation. Dying to self, being raised again to new life in Jesus, etc. A few questions, though, Dying to self and being raised again... how does baptism show that? As the person goes under the water they show the dying to self, and as they are brought up out of it, they proclaim the being raised again to new life bit. Sounds like baptism by immersion. Sprinkling just doesnt match the proclaimation.

Dying to self. Proclaiming that we have died to self. Who dies "to self"? Do the child's parents die to themselves on behalf of their child? Do they kill their child for its own good? How does the reality that baptism proclaims allow for any other option but believers baptism by immersion?

Is Paul sounding a wee bit Baptist? Sorry! Hopefully Paul is sounding a lot Christian. We just need to prayerfully wrestle with what that means.
All the best, Colin

 

[CatholicConvert]

Happen to agree with ya there, mate.

Immersion properly shows what is really happening as the baptizand is going under the water. That is why we immerse our infant children (which requires some care since they tend to be a bit slippery!!).

The Latin Church used to do this. Don't know why they left the practice, perhaps we can ask our Latin partner, Carson, to elucidate.

If you read the Didache, you will find careful instructions for baptism of both adults AND INFANTS for this new thing called "the church." If baptism was taught in a form similar to Baptist belief, pray tell me why the Church didn't practice it and taught that "one goes down into the water dead and rise out of it in newness of life." Similar instructions are found in St. Irenaeus, I believe (except that we no longer baptize candidates in the nude! oh, that Early Church!)

Actually, it was deaconesses baptizing women and priests baptizing men. Nothing amiss here.

Will try to get to your other post tomorrow. Meanwhile, I would ask you for some proof in writing from the second century that Baptistic doctrine, as known now, was practiced back then.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Colin,

I was mentioning to my friend Colin tonight down at the coffee shop that I've been dialoguing with an Australian with the same name that's even spelled the same.. you were a "conversation opener".

I would suggest addressing the Biblical text of Romans.

Paul explicitly shows how we're united with Christ's death in baptism, not how baptism symbolizes us dying through immersion and rising by coming up from the water.. not right here in Romans 6.

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Paul's thesis is that b/c at baptism we were united w/ Christ's death, we have been given a new principle by which we are able to overcome sin, to walk in newness of life.

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness

Now that we have the Spirit received in baptism, we achieve righteousness by growing in holiness.

But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Going from living in sin to living in righteousness

For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.

This process is called sanctification

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

Sanctification's end is eternal life. Justification and sanctification are both ongoing realities. We're justified by the Son as we're sanctified by the Spirit - as we grow in sonship, and the end of all this is eternal life, which begins in baptism.

On to Chapter 8: For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Christ enables us to fulfill the law (the moral law, not the mosaic law).

In 2:13, Paul said For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

We are able to keep the moral law by this new principle (the Spirit) received in baptism because we're united w/ Christ, who condemned sin in the flesh.

And back to 8:13 - for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.

Faith alone? Not according to Paul.

Btw, what I'm showing you was shown to me by a former Protestant.

And, if we look back to Ezekiel's prophecy of the New Covenant in Ch. 36, v. 25 - 27.

I will sprinkle clean water upon you (baptism), and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you (indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit); and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (new principle to keep the moral law).

Have you ever heard of the Didascalia Apostolorum?

God bless,

Carson

[ April 28, 2002, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[CatholicConvert]

Hope you get a laugh out of this one, Carson.

Back when I was a Fundy, I got my authorized version of the Jerry Falwell family Bible -- the great big HUGE one -- for my donation to his "ministry".

One day I was doing some study on baptism, having recently converted to the Presbyterian tradition, and somehow came across this verse:

Isa 52:15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

There was only one problem. Herr Doktor Falwell's Bible had changed one teeny tiny word: sprinkle!!! The word "startle" had been inserted, making the verse read " So shall he startle many nations...." Get real!!!

I couldn't stop laughing for 5 minutes!! A quick run through my concordance showed me that in NO WAY could this word be translated as any other thing than "sprinkle." Seems that some folks will do ANYTHING to keep their doctrine intact

I really do believe that immersion is the BEST form of baptism because it clearly shows our death, burial, and resurrection with the Lord, but I must admit that in the form of "washing from sins", sprinkling and pouring show that reality also.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

[ April 28, 2002, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

"
Will try to get to your other post tomorrow. Meanwhile, I would ask you for some proof in writing from the second century that Baptistic doctrine, as known now, was practiced back then."

Hi there, these are a few references that might help I confess I have not had the time to
look them up myself (something I am planning to do), and so must hope that the books
they are gleaned from prove honest. Equally, herasy invaded the church early, gnostics
and Marcionites just to name two, and some of these quotes may contain doctrine I
would not agree with entirely, but are included as they evidence believers baptism as
early church practice. Enjoy.
The Epistle of Hermes AD 95 approx., “[speaking of backsliders] they are such as have
heard the word, and were willing to be baptised in the name of the Lord”
Clement, “they that are right subjects for baptism, who have passed through an
examination and instruction.”
Ignatius (disciple of John): “[baptism] ought to be accomplished with faith, love and
patience, after preaching.”
These are all first century writers, among whom no mention of infant baptism is found.
Moving on, Justin Martyr wrote to the emperor explaining the faith, speaks clearly of
believers baptism for converts.
Clement of Alexandria wrote: “the baptised ought to be children in malice, but not in
understanding.”
Tertullian : those who desire to dip themselves wholly in this water, must prepare
themselves for it by fasting, confession of sins, prayer and by sincere repentance for sin.”
He also stated that “adults were the only proper subjects of baptism, because fasting,
confessions of sins, prayer, profession, renouncing the devil and his works, are required
from the baptised.” “The soul is sanctified, not by washing but by the answer of a good
conscience-baptism is the seal of faith.”
Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to Sextus of Rome that it was their custom to baptise
upon a profession of faith.
Hilary of Poictiers wrote: “that I may always keep what I confessed in the sacrament of
my regeneration, when I was baptised.”
Athenasius, “Our lord did not slightly command to baptise, for first of all he said teach,
then baptise, that true faith might come by teaching, and baptism be perfected by faith.”
Ephraim also writes, “the baptised used to confess their sins and testify their faith.”
Basil of Caesarea wrote “Do you loiter and put off baptism when you have been from a
child catechised in the word? Are you not aquatinted with the truth? “One must first
believe and then be sealed with baptism.” “none is to be baptised but the catechumens,
and those who are duly instructed in the faith.”
The earliest church councils taught only believer’s baptism. The Council of Elvira (305)
required a delay of two years before salvation and baptism. The Council of Laodicea
(360) demanded that those to be baptised must “learn the creed by heart and recite it.”
The Council of Constantinople also stated that people should “remain a long time under
scriptural instruction before they receive baptism.” The Council of Carthage (398) said
"catechumens shall give their names and be prepared for baptism.”
all the best, Colin

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Colin,

The Catholic Church is in no way against "believer's baptism". This is what she teaches. If an individual is of the age of reason and does not believe the Gospel, then the Church will not baptize such an individual. By quoting Fathers (who elsewhere speak candidly of infant baptism) who speak of believing before being baptized, the Catholics on this board (and those whom you quote) can merely affirm with all gladness.

Regarding infant baptism, this is a subject that is, hands down, a universal practice in the early Church.

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:3).

Justin Martyr (100-166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15).

Further, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Irenaeus (130-200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185-254) and Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (215-258), who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254.

The 66 bishops said: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God..... especially infants. . . those newly born." Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9, "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit."

God bless,

Carson

[ April 29, 2002, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi there, I will respond in more detail soon, but just a quick question, do you believe that baptism confers grace in and of itself?
All the best, Colin
PS, I really enjoyed your thread re salvation and confusion of terms.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Colin,

I will respond in more detail soon

Unfortunately, I'm going to be very inactive among the board until I leave for the summer on Thurs, May 9th due to final exams.

do you believe that baptism confers grace in and of itself?

The phrase "in and of itself" can mean many different things, so I'll state outright what I believe instead of answering "yes" or "no", when I may be answering what I believe to be the question when in fact it really isn't.

I believe that at the moment of baptism, the Holy Spirit is given to the baptized. The person is regenerated with a new principle, which is the indwelling presence of the Holy Trinity. This forgives all sins and makes one a son of God (Jn 1:12). We are given a power to grow in sonship through the infused theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love. This is the universal and ancient faith of the Church, and it is what I believe the Bible teaches.

I really enjoyed your thread re salvation and confusion of terms.

Thanks!

God bless,

Carson

 

[wishtolearn]

That's a nice picture Carson, you look handsome.