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

[37818]

Even today you can see pouring from a secondary vessel on the hands, not the hands immersed in the laver.

I’m not making this up, you can see them use the same ancient method with secondary vessel to pour today, even though the laver itself is obviously a modern self draining sink.
The laver was never dunked in, thousands had to use the laver and it would have been befouled in no time, they weren’t self draining like today.

This is where a little knowledge of ritual practice can save a whole silly goose chase down a rabbit hole.

Secondary vessels, pouring.

What is yet practiced today, doesn't cause the actual New Testament practice to be what you suppose.

 

[Cathode]

Yes. But the immersion was not the requirement. Believing was.

You have to believe to then be baptised and saved thereby. If you do not believe, you are not going to go on to be baptised and saved.

“ He who believes and is baptised will be saved “

In the same sense as Noah and his family was saved by means of the flood.

No. Peter says that that water is symbolic of Baptism that now saves you.

That is simply not true.
1 Corinthians 1:17. The gospel, not baptism.

How many thousands of quotes of the first 1500 years of Christianity would you like me to supply. It was a universal belief, Baptism was always believed regenerative and majority of Christianity believe it today.

 

[37818]

You have to believe to then be baptised and saved thereby. If you do not believe, you are not going to go on to be baptised and saved.

Again, baptism is nowhere in the written word of God the requirement in order to be saved.

No. Peter says that that water is symbolic of Baptism that now saves you.

Again, symbolic of Noah and his family being saved by the flood. Literally an anti-type of being saved by the flood.

How many thousands of quotes of the first 1500 years of Christianity would you like me to supply. It was a universal belief, Baptism was always believed regenerative and majority of Christianity believe it today.

Baptismal salvation is a works based salvation. The religious works do not save, Matthew 7:22, . . . have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Baptism is a work.

 

[Cathode]

What is yet practiced today, doesn't cause the actual New Testament practice to be what you suppose.

Don’t believe me, go ask the Jews, go see for yourself. They still use the secondary vessel and pour, because it is the ancient way, even though taps with running water have been invented for some time now.
Go tell them to get with the times and just use a running tap on their hands.

 

[37818]

Don’t believe me, go ask the Jews, go see for yourself. They still use the secondary vessel and pour, because it is the ancient way, even though taps with running water have been invented for some time now.
Go tell them to get with the times and just use a running tap on their hands.

The New Testament is my sole criteria.

 

[Cathode]

Again, baptism is nowhere in the written word of God the requirement in order to be saved.

“ He who believes and is baptised will be saved “

And you have Jesus very own words which all the early Christians believed were pertaining to baptism.

Again, symbolic of Noah and his family being saved by the flood. Literally an anti-type of being saved by the flood.

The water was the prefigurement of saving baptism.

Baptismal salvation is a works based salvation. The religious works do not save, Matthew 7:22, . . . have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Baptism is a work.

Who’s works? Are you kidding?

A guy gets dunked by someone or water poured on him, what works has he done. He could stand there like a sack of potatoes.

 

[Cathode]

The New Testament is my sole criteria.

And no one else has The New Testament?

 

[37818]

“ He who believes and is baptised will be saved “

Again true. But doesn't make baptism the requirement.

The water was the prefigurement of saving baptism.

So how did the flood save?
You don't know.

Who’s works? Are you kidding?

A guy gets dunked by someone or water poured on him, what works has he done. He could stand there like a sack of potatoes.

Water baptism saves no one.

 

[37818]

And no one else has The New Testament?

The New Testament is the primary source teachings for genuine Christianity.

 

[Cathode]

The New Testament is the primary source teachings for genuine Christianity.

Note the early Christians quote Jesus Himself from Scripture and they all understand Him to be speaking of Baptism and it’s regenerattion.

” ‘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).

“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).

They are all quoting The New Testament, yet they all hold that Jesus was speaking of Baptism.

 

[Cathode]

Again true. But doesn't make baptism the requirement.

So how did the flood save?

As Peter said the waters are symbolic of baptism which washes away all corruption.

“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.”

It’s not a physical washing of dirt from the body, but a spiritual cleansing that clears our conscience toward God, wiping away all sin.

This the regeneration of Baptism that now saves us.

 

[JonC]

No it doesn’t.

Mark 7:3 the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash “baptizo” their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something in this case, over their hands.
Water is always drawn from the laver and poured over the hands in Jewish ritual, so that the laver was not contaminated for those after. Yet the same word is used for pouring and immersion.
Because people aren’t aware of ancient ritual, they end getting caught up in these senseless obsessions.

Mark 7:4 – we see that the Jews washed “bapto” from baptizo cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed “bapto” couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

I think this is an unjustifiable fixation you have here, which all seems rather silly considering you hold Baptism of no effect.

Besides the Fathers tell us baptism, poured and immersed is Apostolic.

In Mark 7:3 "baptizo" is the root - thr word is "baptisontai" (νίψωνται). It means "wash" or "cleanse". Same with Mark 7:4 (βαπτίσωνται).

Words do not mean their root.
Jesus was baptized (ἐβαπτίσθη).
The Jews washed (βαπτίσωνται)

Sprinkle - ῥαντίζω
Wash or cleanse - βαπτίσωνται
Pour - ἐκχεῶ
Baptize - βαπτίζω

You are not giving true information. A word does not mean the same as its root.

 

[JonC]

What @Cathode seems to be avoiding is history.

I get the readons for pouring rather than immersion. I actually don't have a huge problem with the reasons.

And, yes, there were instances (wasn't the first in the 8th century?) where pouring was allowed.

BUT these were by necessity.

It was not until the 14th century that Catholics poured water over a person, calling it "baptism", as a normal practice (the Council of Ravenna).

So Catholics....that is, Roman Catholics.....adopted pouring as a normal mode of baptism in the 14th century.

Just because pouring was allowed if no water was avaliable, or if the person was not able to be baptized, does not mean it has always been the accepted method.


According to the church fathers, those sprinkled are not baptized. Those who had water poured over their heads when a body of water (even a pool instead of "living water") was avaliable and they were able to be immersed are not baptized.

Pouring was considered baptism ONLY if no water was around for immersion or the person could not be immersed (on their deathbed, for example).

 

[37818]

This the regeneration of Baptism that now saves us.

You suppose a regeneration where there is none.
2 Peter 3:6, Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: . . .

 

[Cathode]

You suppose a regeneration where there is none.
2 Peter 3:6, Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: . . .

The waters washed what was sinful and corrupt away, that is how Peter links those waters and baptism.

“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.”

Not physical washing of dirt but spiritual cleansing of sin and corruption.

 

[Cathode]

What @Cathode seems to be avoiding is history.

I get the readons for pouring rather than immersion. I actually don't have a huge problem with the reasons.

And, yes, there were instances (wasn't the first in the 8th century?) where pouring was allowed.

BUT these were by necessity.

It was not until the 14th century that Catholics poured water over a person, calling it "baptism", as a normal practice (the Council of Ravenna).

So Catholics....that is, Roman Catholics.....adopted pouring as a normal mode of baptism in the 14th century.

Just because pouring was allowed if no water was avaliable, or if the person was not able to be baptized, does not mean it has always been the accepted method.

According to the church fathers, those sprinkled are not baptized. Those who had water poured over their heads when a body of water (even a pool instead of "living water") was avaliable and they were able to be immersed are not baptized.

Pouring was considered baptism ONLY if no water was around for immersion or the person could not be immersed (on their deathbed, for example).

The fact that mode changeable at all means that is not something set in stone as a hard ordinance, but a norm.

Mode is discretionary to circumstance.

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

We can see Cyprian gives us the principle that faith of the parties is the most important consideration.
Mode is not set in stone, but what is set in stone are the words of Baptism.
Availability of water is the other consideration.

I’m not the one pushing the bureaucratic onlyist position, my point is made and proven.

 

[JonC]

The fact that mode changeable at all means that is not something set in stone as a hard ordinance, but a norm.

Mode is discretionary to circumstance.

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

We can see Cyprian gives us the principle that faith of the parties is the most important consideration.
Mode is not set in stone, but what is set in stone are the words of Baptism.
Availability of water is the other consideration.

I’m not the one pushing the bureaucratic onlyist position, my point is made and proven.

Immersion is not, in the Roman Catholic Church, the only mode of baptism except when a water sourse suitable for immersion is avaliable. The Roman Catholic Church is unrelated to rhe Church Fathers in this regard.

The elements are considered to actually become flesh and blood. The Roman Catholic Church is unrelated to rhe Early Church in this regard.

The Roman Catholic Church doctrine of Atonement would be a heresy in the Early Church and to the Church Fathers.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches the Immaculate Conception, a doctrine foreign to the Apostles, the Early Church and the Church Fathers.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary and Saints can be a mediators, an idea that would be a heresy in the Early Church, and to the Church Fathers.

The Roman Catholic use of relics would be considered pagan to the Apostalic Church, the Early Church, and the Church Fathers (it is actually pagan in origin).

The Roman Catholic focus on the Mass is foreign to the Apostallic Church and the Early Church.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is foreign to the Apostalic Church and the Early Church.

The Roman Catholic priesthood would be a heresy in the Apostalic and Early Church.

The Roman Catholic ecclesiastical system is foreign to the Apostilic and Early Church.

The Roman Catholic idea of theocracy (Christendom) is not only foreign to the Apolistic and Early Church but a subject Origen also wrote strongly against as being non-Christian.

The Roman Catholic type of ritualistic worship is derived from paganism and would have been noted as such in the Early Church.

The use of ritualistic devotional practices derived from mystery cult worship (paganism) and would have been recognized as such (this is very dominant in Orthodox Catholicism).



There is absolutely no way possible to reconcile Roman Catholic doctrine with Christian doctrine. The Catholics believe what their "church" tells them.

Roman Catholicism IS paganism. BUT it is a type of "Christian paganism" as the essentials of the gospel can still shine through. That is why there ate Catholics who ate also Christian today. They are saved despite their doctrine.

 

[37818]

The waters washed what was sinful and corrupt away, that is how Peter links those waters and baptism.

“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.”

Not physical washing of dirt but spiritual cleansing of sin and corruption.

You read into it what text does not teach.

 

[Cathode]

You read into it what text does not teach.

It teaches that baptism is salvific and clears the conscience toward God, which is spiritual regeneration. Which fits perfectly with the Fathers teachings on Baptism.

You don’t hold that baptism is salvific, or clears the conscience toward God. You don’t think it does anything.

Justin (Martyr) (Rome, 100-165), First Apology, Ch. 61
They (those to be baptized) then are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water ... The reason for this we have received from the Apostles.


Baptism is regenerative, always has been believed.

 

[Cathode]

Immersion is not, in the Roman Catholic Church, the only mode of baptism except when a water sourse suitable for immersion is avaliable. The Roman Catholic Church is unrelated to rhe Church Fathers in this regard.

False, I posted a video of a Catholic immersion baptism.

The elements are considered to actually become flesh and blood. The Roman Catholic Church is unrelated to rhe Early Church in this regard.

The Body and Blood is confirmed in Scripture by Jesus own words.
And the Fathers testify to it.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of the Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

The Roman Catholic Church doctrine of Atonement would be a heresy in the Early Church and to the Church Fathers.

The Catholic doctrine on Atonement was handed down from the Fathers.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches the Immaculate Conception, a doctrine foreign to the Apostles, the Early Church and the Church Fathers.

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary and Saints can be a mediators, an idea that would be a heresy in the Early Church, and to the Church Fathers.

We are all mediators when we pray for others. But Christ’s mediatorship is the only one that opened the way between God and man for salvation.

The Roman Catholic use of relics would be considered pagan to the Apostalic Church, the Early Church, and the Church Fathers (it is actually pagan in origin).

No it’s scriptural even.

Acts 19:11-12 Paul’s handkerchiefs healed the sick and those with unclean spirits. This is an example of physical things effecting physical and spiritual cures, conveying God’s power. We call this a second class relic.

2 Kings 13:21 Elisha’s bones bring a man back to life. The remains of Holy people can convey God’s power. This is a first class relic.