What the Nicene Creed is and isn’t etc..

[Cathode]

The Nicene Creed isn’t like a confession that denominations make to profess their distinctive doctrines, yet not be so alien as to disqualify from general Christianity.

The Creed is what unifies but also decides who is Christian in the first place. You believe it, you are Christian according to Nicene Fathers, and if you don’t believe it in part or whole, you are not a Christian according to the Fathers.
This is far more serious than a denominational confession, it is the core belief of Christianity.

Secondly, people have to understand what the Fathers meant by the wording of the Creed, not bend the wording to make themselves comfortable. So absolute intellectual honesty has to happen, before one signs his name to this Creed.

“in one holy catholic and apostolic church.”

What did the Fathers mean by “one holy catholic and apostolic church”?

Did they mean just some nebulous Church spiritually connected as being Catholic in the universal sense of the word “ Catholic “ ?

Or did they mean the term Catholic, as in a visible, Apostolic Church with a unified, cohesive episcopate under the Chair of Peter. The Fathers themselves being members of this visible Government.

“We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”

What did the Fathers mean by this?

Did the Fathers see baptism as merely symbolic?

Or did the Fathers understand the baptism they talk of as regenerative and salvific.

I might be able to help out, so people understand what the Fathers understood these things to mean to them.
People need to know what was originally meant and understood by the Fathers Creed.

So I quote pre Nicea.

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

So 75 years before Nicea, we see a fully established and visible Church of bishops under The Chair of Peter.

And Baptism was regarded universally as regenerative before Nicea.

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244).

“[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to ‘lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,’ unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’…[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” Cyprian, To Stephen, 71:72 (A.D. 253).

“And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit…Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.” Council of Carthage VII (A.D. 258).

So understand the Nicene Creed as The Fathers did before you sign up to it. It’s not a trivial thing.

 

[Jerome]

Let's amend our Baptist Faith & Message to add in The Nicene Creed, says Malcolm Yarnell of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:

Pro Gloria Christi blog ❧ 2024 SBC Annual Meeting will see push to insert a new Article, "XIX: The Creed", into the Baptist Faith & Message

At the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in June 2024, Lord willing, we plan to move, and pray the Messengers will agree unanimously, that the Baptist Faith and Message be amended by the adoption of this article, which is also known as the Nicene Creed.

 

[Jerome]

The 'high church' faction of Southern Baptists that put out the 'Manifesto for Evangelical Baptist Catholicity' favors this alteration of the Convention's statement of faith:

The Center for Baptist Renewal ❧ We Support Adding the Nicene Creed to the Baptist Faith and Message

Because "we confess, alongside the 17th century General Baptists, The Three Creeds, (viz.) Nicene Creed, Athanasius his Creed, and the Apostles Creed, (as they are commonly called) ought throughly to be received, and believed", "We were delighted this week when we saw that several Southern Baptist pastors and professors have made plans to propose an amendment to the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) to include the text of the Nicene Creed. We wholeheartedly support this proposed amendment and pray that Southern Baptists will eagerly and joyfully adopt this motion"

 

[Jerome]

Some gems from The Center for Baptist Renewal's 'Manifesto for Evangelical Baptist Catholicity':

"We affirm the distinctive contributions of the Baptist tradition as a renewal movement within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

"We encourage the ongoing affirmation, confession, and catechetical use of the three ecumenical creeds"

"We believe that Baptist worship should be anchored in Holy Scripture and informed by the liturgical practices of the historic church...such as lectionary readings, the liturgical calendar, corporate confession of sin, the assurance of pardon, the recitation of scriptural and historic prayers (especially the Lord’s Prayer), and the corporate confession of the faith (expressed in the ecumenical creeds and other confessional documents)"

"We believe that all Christians should pray for and seek Christian unity across ecclesial and denominational lines"

 

[Cathode]

Some gems from The Center for Baptist Renewal's 'Manifesto for Evangelical Baptist Catholicity':

"We affirm the distinctive contributions of the Baptist tradition as a renewal movement within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

"We encourage the ongoing affirmation, confession, and catechetical use of the three ecumenical creeds"

"We believe that Baptist worship should be anchored in Holy Scripture and informed by the liturgical practices of the historic church...such as lectionary readings, the liturgical calendar, corporate confession of sin, the assurance of pardon, the recitation of scriptural and historic prayers (especially the Lord’s Prayer), and the corporate confession of the faith (expressed in the ecumenical creeds and other confessional documents)"

"We believe that all Christians should pray for and seek Christian unity across ecclesial and denominational lines"

Yes but understanding and affirming the Creed as the Fathers understood it, is vitally important, if people are to affirm the Creed in spirit and truth, and have true Communion with the Fathers.

The “ one baptism for the forgiveness of sin “ the Fathers professed, is that of, regenerative Baptism and Infant Baptism.

People aren’t affirming the Creed if they don’t believe this, they aren’t in communion with the Fathers if they believe other than this.

This is not merely a confession, it is the Christian Creed.

 

[Cathode]

“*By catholicity, we mean universality and wholeness. It is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. Other Baptist groups and theologians have utilized the notion of “Baptist Catholicity” or “Bapto-Catholicity" (see, for example, the manifesto for Re-Envisioning Baptist Identity), but we are seeking to stake a claim for a particularly evangelical expression of this impulse.

**The earliest Baptists, among both the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists, used the language of “sacrament” to refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In doing so, they meant to communicate that these ordinances are means of grace utilized by the risen Christ to strengthen and confirm the faith of believers. They did not mean to convey that the sacraments are automatically effective, that baptism is regenerative, or that the elements of the Lord’s Supper become the physical body and blood of Christ.”

These qualifications are precisely where Baptist’s depart the Creed as understood and affirmed by the Fathers at Nicea.

The one Catholic Church as the Fathers understood it, was the united episcopate of which they were part, in union with the headship of The Chair of Peter.

These Nicene Fathers held that Baptism was regenerative and given to infants.

They believed that the bread and wine physically become The Body and Blood of Christ.

A completely honest approach would not make these qualifications, knowing what the Fathers actually believed.

Do people want a legitimate communion with the Faith of the Fathers or is this a grab for historical legitimacy and depth that isn’t there.

 

[Cathode]

“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!” Tertullian 206 AD

The Fathers believed Baptism was sacramental, regenerational and given to infants.
This was a Tradition they say they were handed down from the Apostles. This belief was universal from the beginning.

The new idea of believers only baptism began in 1525 when a breakaway Protestant sect decided to rebaptise as believing adults.

From that first error, generations of denominations have broken away infected with this error, denying countless millions of infants baptismal regeneration over the years. A great evil. I can’t imagine the weight of justice the inventor of this heresy has over him, it cannot be atoned for.

However, the vast majority of Christianity today and all the ancient churches from the beginning, maintain the Apostolic sacrament of regenerative Baptism.

 

[Cathode]

“*By catholicity, we mean universality and wholeness. It is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. Other Baptist groups and theologians have utilized the notion of “Baptist Catholicity” or “Bapto-Catholicity"

“You think that you make a very acute remark when you affirm the name Catholic to mean universal, not in respect to the communion as embracing the whole world, but in respect to the observance of all Divine precepts and of all the sacraments, as if we (even accepting the position that the Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole truth, of which fragments here and there are found in some heresies) rested upon the testimony of this word’s signification, and not upon the promises of God, and so many indisputable testimonies of the truth itself, our demonstration of the existence of the Church of God in all nations.” Augustine, To Vincent the Rogatist, 93:7,23 (A.D. 403).

The notional claim of “Catholicity” is nothing new, Eastern Orthodox people say they are “ catholic “, same with Anglicans claiming they are “ Catholic “, and now Baptist’s claim “catholicity”. Everyone seeks the association with this ancient name, yet by past heresy or schism, they do not assemble themselves at the Catholic Church, it is not the name of their church.

Look at the phenomenon that occurs when the inquirer uses the name Catholic.

“ The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. “ Augustine Letter to Mani 397 AD.

Go ask simply where the “Catholic Church” is in any place, and see where it is they direct you. The same phenomenon we can witness today, 1600 years after Augustine observed the same thing.

“And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

The name Catholic is of one visible ancient Apostolic Church, not just by some spiritual union.
The Fathers saw it as visible cohesive Church with an Apostolic government and one and the same faith believed and taught throughout the world, under the Apostolic See.

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).

“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church Catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).

If people are of good conscience towards the Fathers and the Creed in spirit and truth, they will be honest regarding the beliefs the Fathers and their understanding of the Creed.

The Fathers would not have recognised the “ Bapto-Catholicity “ people are pushing here.

 

[Cathode]

If people want to return beliefs of the early Christians, they need to return to the sacramental understanding of Baptism as expressed by the Fathers, and the Catholic Church as understood by the Fathers.

Baptism is regenerative. Always has been from the beginning.

Baptism is given to infants. Always has been from the beginning.

Catholicity is being Catholic as a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church under The Chair of Peter.

 

[David Lamb]

If people want to return beliefs of the early Christians, they need to return to the sacramental understanding of Baptism as expressed by the Fathers, and the Catholic Church as understood by the Fathers.

Baptism is regenerative. Always has been from the beginning.

Baptism is given to infants. Always has been from the beginning.

Catholicity is being Catholic as a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church under The Chair of Peter.

However, when the Ethiopian eunuch asked for baptism, Philip said that if he believed, he could be baptized. Later in Acts, we read of the jailer at Philippi:

“33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [their] stripes. And immediately he and all his [family] were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” (Ac 16:33-34 NKJV) [emphasis mine]

That same jailer had already been told by the apostles that if he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, he would be saved. His baptism followed his belief.

 

[Cathode]

However, when the Ethiopian eunuch asked for baptism, Philip said that if he believed, he could be baptized. Later in Acts, we read of the jailer at Philippi:

“33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [their] stripes. And immediately he and all his [family] were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” (Ac 16:33-34 NKJV) [emphasis mine]

That same jailer had already been told by the apostles that if he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, he would be saved. His baptism followed his belief.

Sure, if you believe Gospel, you get Baptised and regenerated by water and Spirit, and original sin is washed away.

At the dawn of Creation and the very first words of Scripture tell of water and Spirit.

1 “In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.“

We are created anew at dawn of our Faith by water and Spirit. A New Creation.

All the early Christians believed in Baptismal regeneration from the beginning, including infants.

Anabaptists who created their churches and doctrines by modern textual criticism alone, alienated from Apostolic Christianity, ran with the erroneous doctrine of believers baptism.
Having been baptised as infants like Christians before them, they declared re-baptism was necessary, a novel doctrine that was alien to all the Fathers.

The Fathers were not modern textual critics that founded their doctrines on their erroneous opinions of Scripture alone, they were born and raised in Apostolic Tradition that understands the Scriptures in Truth.

Baptism is being “ Born again “.

“Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,–as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2:16 (A.D. 181).

” ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

“When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'” Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203).

Baptism was always given to infants.

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.” Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

“It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration.” Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).

“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).

“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity.” Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387)

 

[JonC]

If people want to return beliefs of the early Christians, they need to return to the sacramental understanding of Baptism as expressed by the Fathers, and the Catholic Church as understood by the Fathers.

Baptism is regenerative. Always has been from the beginning.

Baptism is given to infants. Always has been from the beginning.

Catholicity is being Catholic as a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church under The Chair of Peter.

Um....kinda but not exactly.

"The Chair of Peter" is a concept foreign to the early church. In fact, the early church never held that Peter was in Rome. It became an important idea to the Roman Catholic Church during the schism (to establish the primacy of the Roman bishop).

Also, the practice of sprinkling as "baptism" is foreign to the early church. So technically, no Roman Catholic is baptislzed.

 

[Cathode]

Um....kinda but not exactly.

"The Chair of Peter" is a concept foreign to the early church. In fact, the early church never held that Peter was in Rome. It became an important idea to the Roman Catholic Church during the schism (to establish the primacy of the Roman bishop).

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

“The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today.” Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).

Also, the practice of sprinkling as "baptism" is foreign to the early church. So technically, no Roman Catholic is baptislzed.

No it’s not.

You have asked ... whether they are to accounted legitimate Christians, for that they are not to be washed, but sprinkled, with the saving water. ... I think that the divine benefits can in no respect be mutilated and weakened; nor can anything less occur in that case where, with full and entire faith both of the giver and receiver, is accepted what is drawn from the divine gifts ... it ought not to trouble any one that sick people seem to be sprinkled or effused, when they obtain the Lord's grace. Cyprian (Carthage, 200-258): Letters, No. 69:12


No river, no problems.

Cyprian was no ordinary Bishop either, he was renowned even in his own day.

The Holy Spirit is not a bureaucrat.

People in necessity were not denied on a technicality, “but sprinkled, with the saving water”

Baptism regenerative and sprinkled.

 

[Cathode]

Besides I’ve visibly seen the effect of Baptism, a baby totally radiant blasting with Light. And my whole being was surrounded in rejoicing joyfulness, which I only experience around the newly baptised.
I can confirm what the Church Fathers are saying, they are telling the truth.

“Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: ‘For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 4:20 (A.D. 391).

“Baptism, then, is a purification from sins, a remission of trespasses, a cause of renovation and regeneration…Let us however, if it seems well, persevere in enquiring more fully and more minutely concerning Baptism, starting, as from the fountain-head, from the Scriptural declaration, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Why are both named, and why is not the Spirit alone accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism? Man, as we know full well, is compound, not simple: and therefore the cognate and similar medicines are assigned for healing to him who is twofold and conglomerate:–for his visible body, water, the sensible element,–for his soul, which we cannot see, the Spirit invisible, invoked by faith, present unspeakably. For ‘the Spirit breathes where He wills, and thou hearest His voice, but canst not tell whence He cometh or whither He goeth.’ He blesses the body that is baptized, and the water that baptizes. Despise not, therefore, the Divine laver, nor think lightly of it, as a common thing, on account of the use of water. For the power that operates is mighty, and wonderful are the things that are wrought thereby.” Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ (ante A.D. 394).

“Time would fail me were I to try to lay before you in order all the passages in the Holy Scriptures which relate to the efficacy of baptism or to explain the mysterious doctrine of that second birth which though it is our second is yet our first in Christ.” Jerome, To Oceanus, 69:7 (A.D. 397).

 

[JonC]

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

“The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today.” Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).



No it’s not.

You have asked ... whether they are to accounted legitimate Christians, for that they are not to be washed, but sprinkled, with the saving water. ... I think that the divine benefits can in no respect be mutilated and weakened; nor can anything less occur in that case where, with full and entire faith both of the giver and receiver, is accepted what is drawn from the divine gifts ... it ought not to trouble any one that sick people seem to be sprinkled or effused, when they obtain the Lord's grace. Cyprian (Carthage, 200-258): Letters, No. 69:12


No river, no problems.

Cyprian was no ordinary Bishop either, he was renowned even in his own day.

The Holy Spirit is not a bureaucrat.

People in necessity were not denied on a technicality, “but sprinkled, with the saving water”

Baptism regenerative and sprinkled.

I think you missed my point.

The first recorded instance of baptism by sprinkling (actually pouring) is in the 3rd century.

We can reasonably know that sprinkling was not a common practice with the early church because the Bishop defended pouring water rather than actually baptizing the man as a necessity based on the man's health.

If it were a common practice then the Bishop would not have explained why the exception was made.

But you are right that we have Christians baptizing by pouring water when necessary. And I have no problem with that at all.

I do not believe that the Catholic Church baptized by sprinkling only when absolutely necessary.


Reading early writings (prior to the founding of the Catholic Church) one has to keep in mind that "catholic" did not refer to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church uses "catholic", but the word means "universal".

Non-Catholcs (like Baptists) also have used "catholic" to refer to the universal church (the Bride). This was very common in the 18th century, for example, although those Christians considered the Catholic Church to be satanic.


It is similar to the Church of Christ claiming that they are the original and true church because the Bible mentions "church of Christ"....or Baptists who point out (seriously) that John was called "John the Baptist".

 

[Cathode]

I think you missed my point.

The first recorded instance of baptism by sprinkling (actually pouring) is in the 3rd century.

We can reasonably know that sprinkling was not a common practice with the early church because the Bishop defended pouring water rather than actually baptizing the man as a necessity based on the man's health.

If it were a common practice then the Bishop would not have explained why the exception was made.

But you are right that we have Christians baptizing by pouring water when necessary. And I have no problem with that at all.

I do not believe that the Catholic Church baptized by sprinkling only when absolutely necessary.

Actually we have a first century source, and whether we accept it as authoritative or not, we have an Apostolic contemporary that demonstrates a certain practicality regarding baptism.

“But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; And if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any other also who are able; And thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.” Didache 7:1-4 (c. 60-100 AD)

Remember those that are bound only to sacred text as authoritive don’t have binding or loosing authority of an Apostolic successor.
An Apostolic successor is not always textually bound to a formula, he has certain latitude, and can hold sprinkling on Earth as valid, and Heaven will hold it equally valid, for necessity or practicalities sake, and within the bounds scripture and tradition.
So the textually constrained have no authority bind or loose anything, even for practicality in the life of their church.
They also face endless deliberation over text among themselves that is never definitively settled to this day. Matters settled long ago in the Catholic Church.

Reading early writings (prior to the founding of the Catholic Church) one has to keep in mind that "catholic" did not refer to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church uses "catholic", but the word means "universal".

You assert that, but I don’t accept the premise. Catholic means both universal, and is the Name of a visible Apostolic Church with particular doctrines and government.
I must have seen hundreds of different foundation dates of the Catholic Church thrown at me by various Protestants and Baptist’s groups all with human founders from the 1500s onwards.
The Catholic Church was founded by Christ on the Apostles, I just want to clear that up for people so there is no more mucking around.

Non-Catholcs (like Baptists) also have used "catholic" to refer to the universal church (the Bride). This was very common in the 18th century, for example, although those Christians considered the Catholic Church to be satanic.

It is similar to the Church of Christ claiming that they are the original and true church because the Bible mentions "church of Christ"....or Baptists who point out (seriously) that John was called "John the Baptist".

And none of these human founded traditions goes back before Luther at the earliest. They invent a history because they have no history, their claims are easily proven false.

The Catholic Church however has a very long and very well documented and celebrated history, that the human founded traditions can not compete with, so they must smear and deny.

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

What is the “ Catholic “ Church to these guys, just a nebulous universal thing, or a visible, authoritive, real and distinct Church.

Cyprian who calls the Church Catholic then says.

And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

Cyprian’s “Catholic” Church has a Throne of Peter in Rome.

But you say no, it’s not really the Catholic Church being talked about here.

Yes it is, obviously.

 

[JonC]

Actually we have a first century source, and whether we accept it as authoritative or not, we have an Apostolic contemporary that demonstrates a certain practicality regarding baptism.

“But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; And if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any other also who are able; And thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.” Didache 7:1-4 (c. 60-100 AD)

Remember those that are bound only to sacred text as authoritive don’t have binding or loosing authority of an Apostolic successor.
An Apostolic successor is not always textually bound to a formula, he has certain latitude, and can hold sprinkling on Earth as valid, and Heaven will hold it equally valid, for necessity or practicalities sake, and within the bounds scripture and tradition.
So the textually constrained have no authority bind or loose anything, even for practicality in the life of their church.
They also face endless deliberation over text among themselves that is never definitively settled to this day. Matters settled long ago in the Catholic Church.



You assert that, but I don’t accept the premise. Catholic means both universal, and is the Name of a visible Apostolic Church with particular doctrines and government.
I must have seen hundreds of different foundation dates of the Catholic Church thrown at me by various Protestants and Baptist’s groups all with human founders from the 1500s onwards.
The Catholic Church was founded by Christ on the Apostles, I just want to clear that up for people so there is no more mucking around.





And none of these human founded traditions goes back before Luther at the earliest. They invent a history because they have no history, their claims are easily proven false.

The Catholic Church however has a very long and very well documented and celebrated history, that the human founded traditions can not compete with, so they must smear and deny.

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

What is the “ Catholic “ Church to these guys, just a nebulous universal thing, or a visible, authoritive, real and distinct Church.

Cyprian who calls the Church Catholic then says.

And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

Cyprian’s “Catholic” Church has a Throne of Peter in Rome.

But you say no, it’s not really the Catholic Church being talked about here.

Yes it is, obviously.

I agree the Didache (you assume an early date, but it doesn't matter) allows for pouring water in certain cases....never as the normal mode.

I do not expect you to accept "catholic" as referring to "universal" rather than the Roman Catholic Church any more than I expect my CoC friends to reject the idea that Scripture speaks of their denomination as "the Church of Christ".

As far as baptism goes, it obviously was immersion in the 1st century (as a primary means) and you proved this with your 1st reference. Why allow for pouring when cold if sprinkling was the normal mode? Why "living water" if immersion was not the mode?

By your account, sprinkling was not baptism but pouring water three times when circumstances necessary an alternate mode was acceptable.


Were you baptized that way (immersion or, of too cold, by pouring water over your head three times)?


Obviously ours is not a tradition that does not go back before Luther (too many baptistic writings, and anti-Roman Catholic writings, prior to Luther exists to take that comment seriously).

This does not mean those people were right, just that you have posted something wrong. I suspect it is something you were taught.

I encourage you to read about our pre-Reformation tradition - not to change your faith but for your edification. I read Roman Catholic writings, and I think you may find the writings of the forerunners to Luther interesting (if you like history).

As far as "catholic", I never suggested it something so abstract. While not the Catholic Church, the early church did believe it was the catholic church (Christians, "the Bride"). It has continued in that way to date, only less so in the previous century.

In other words, the Catholic Church is not the catholic church (it is a poor replacement). BUT that doesn't mean there are some Catholics who are indeed saved and a part of the Church.

There is no evidence Peter went to Rome (actually, there are evidences...at least strong hints....in Scripture that Peter did not make it to Rome).

The Catholic Church began in the 4th century. Earlier Jerusalem was the center of Christianity.

 

[David Lamb]

Sure, if you believe Gospel, you get Baptised and regenerated by water and Spirit, and original sin is washed away.

At the dawn of Creation and the very first words of Scripture tell of water and Spirit.

1 “In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.“

We are created anew at dawn of our Faith by water and Spirit. A New Creation.

All the early Christians believed in Baptismal regeneration from the beginning, including infants.

Anabaptists who created their churches and doctrines by modern textual criticism alone, alienated from Apostolic Christianity, ran with the erroneous doctrine of believers baptism.
Having been baptised as infants like Christians before them, they declared re-baptism was necessary, a novel doctrine that was alien to all the Fathers.

The Fathers were not modern textual critics that founded their doctrines on their erroneous opinions of Scripture alone, they were born and raised in Apostolic Tradition that understands the Scriptures in Truth.

Baptism is being “ Born again “.

“Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,–as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2:16 (A.D. 181).

” ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

“When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'” Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203).

Baptism was always given to infants.

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.” Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

“It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration.” Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).

“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).

“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity.” Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387)

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply. As you probably realise on a site lie the Baptist Board, there will be many who, like myself, believe that the bible teaches baptism as a sign for believers, rather than a ceremony which causes somebody to be saved.

 

[Cathode]

I agree the Didache (you assume an early date, but it doesn't matter) allows for pouring water in certain cases....never as the normal mode.

I do not expect you to accept "catholic" as referring to "universal" rather than the Roman Catholic Church any more than I expect my CoC friends to reject the idea that Scripture speaks of their denomination as "the Church of Christ".

I accept that Catholic means universal, it is you who can not accept that Catholic means a large, distinct, Apostolic Church under The Chair of Peter. Anything but that surely.

As far as baptism goes, it obviously was immersion in the 1st century (as a primary means) and you proved this with your 1st reference. Why allow for pouring when cold if sprinkling was the normal mode? Why "living water" if immersion was not the mode?

Sure if abundant water was available, why not. But we see a practicality being expressed in the Didache, which lends credence to the idea that mode is a lesser consideration than Faith, and the prayer formula.
Mind you, all this is a mute when dealing with people that hold that Baptism itself is merely symbolic and effects nothing.
I don’t think the Apostles baptised 3000 people by immersion, there was no water there for that.
Like I said however, those that are confined to text alone regarding modality are stuck to it like an old recipe for a cake. There is no binding or loosing authority or latitude to declare a minor consideration like mode valid or not, even for practicality sake in the life of the church.

The early Christians were not text alone, they were Word of God Alone, which encompasses both the Apostolic preaching and writings together.

By your account, sprinkling was not baptism but pouring water three times when circumstances necessary an alternate mode was acceptable.

Were you baptized that way (immersion or, of too cold, by pouring water over your head three times)?

There are practical considerations, like water scarcity and the infirm that can not be subjected to water immersion. So I don’t think mode was a rigid formula, otherwise we would not even see pouring as an option.

I was a 3 pour Baptism.

Obviously ours is not a tradition that does not go back before Luther (too many baptistic writings, and anti-Roman Catholic writings, prior to Luther exists to take that comment seriously).

This does not mean those people were right, just that you have posted something wrong. I suspect it is something you were taught.

I encourage you to read about our pre-Reformation tradition - not to change your faith but for your edification. I read Roman Catholic writings, and I think you may find the writings of the forerunners to Luther interesting (if you like history).

The trail of blood theory is not serious scholarship, it’s a feverish postulation looking for doctrinal association with dissenting groups in history, groups Baptist’s had not even remote associations with.
Discovering the very Catholic nature of early Christianity, James Carroll had to invent a history, and fabricate associations with any dissenting groups he could. His starting false premise was that early Christians being Catholic, was unthinkable, therefore his historical fabrications became very thinkable.
Not even Protestant scholars treat it with any seriousness, its desperate and fantasist.

As far as "catholic", I never suggested it something so abstract. While not the Catholic Church, the early church did believe it was the catholic church (Christians, "the Bride"). It has continued in that way to date, only less so in the previous century.

But abstract enough to convince yourself that “catholic” could never mean Catholic.

Ok, what “Catholic Church” is Irenaeus thinking about here founded in Rome by Peter and Paul, with pre-eminent authority, and a succession of bishops that every church must agree with this Church, including the faithful everywhere.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

In other words, the Catholic Church is not the catholic church (it is a poor replacement). BUT that doesn't mean there are some Catholics who are indeed saved and a part of the Church.

Assertion without evidence.

There is no evidence Peter went to Rome (actually, there are evidences...at least strong hints....in Scripture that Peter did not make it to Rome).

There is plenty of evidence, it’s just unthinkable that you could bring yourself to believe it.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

“[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

‘We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross.” Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

“Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.” Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

“Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome.” Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

The Catholic Church began in the 4th century.

No it didn’t. Just assertion with no evidence.

I have quoted Church Fathers, early Church scholars, and Councils, you have not quoted any Church history to back your assertions.

 

[Cathode]

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply. As you probably realise on a site lie the Baptist Board, there will be many who, like myself, believe that the bible teaches baptism as a sign for believers, rather than a ceremony which causes somebody to be saved.

I’m realising that people deny baptisms effect, but I personally know it’s not the case.

Baptism is regenerative, but also the early Christians believed Baptism is regenerative.