Baptism

I really liked this comment that Sue Bee left on the previous post:

Because those of us who rightly recognize baptism as a sacrament also recognize that it is a work of God and know that His work is always perfect. We can trust Him to get it right.

Those who regard it as their own good work are left with the nagging question of whether it was good enough. So they invent baptism laws not found in the Bible as "hoops to jump through" to convince themselves that their baptism was indeed valid.

It is very ironic that those who claim a simple faith, often make it complicated. Similarly, Catholics are accused of "works salvation" but do not have requirements to read the KJV Bible daily, dress only in dresses, only homeschoool, etc. If you can say "If you were really a Christian, then you wouldn't/would . . . " then you are looking to works.

The form of baptism does not seem to have been strict even in the earliest days of Christianity. Here is a passage concerning baptism from the Didache, which was written about the same time as the Gospel of St. John:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

What is important, is that there is water, and the Trinitarian formula. Whether the water is "living" from a natural source such as a river, or from a font in your church, whether it is cold or warm, whether it is immersion or poured, these things are not so important.

Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

I have a non-sleeping teething baby here, so most of this will be pasted from previous posts, but we'll see what I can get done in five minutes . . .

A new post by Candy today with some new material, but mostly several points she has written about previously all in one very long article.

We are called to follow Jesus. Jesus was baptized, and He tells us that we should be baptized as well. If a saved person doesn't get a chance to get baptized before death, that is no problem, because we are saved through faith in Christ, not through water baptism:

Catholics call this "baptism by desire."

CCC 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." -Luke 23:39-43

Two thieves were hung on crosses by Jesus. One did not believe on him, but the other chose to have a saving faith in Christ before his death. This thief was not able to jump off of the cross and get baptized before his death, yet Jesus affirms that he is saved, when he says that he is going to paradise.

No, baptism isn't required for salvation, but in normal circumstances, it should follow it:

Jesus has the power to tell someone that he will enter paradise, but that does not mean that it is not necessary. Baptism is the normal means ordained by Jesus.

From John 3 Birth versus Baptism:

The first thing that Jesus does after speaking with Nicodemus is to begin baptizing in 3:22.

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women

Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts: 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The eunuch in Acts 8 needs to be baptized after believing in Jesus. Paul, who was made an apostle by Jesus Himself, was baptized immediately in Acts 9:18.

In Matt 28:19 Jesus commands "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" linking teaching and baptism.

Also, Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter was following Jesus' command in Mark 16: 16 where He says "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Why would Jesus say in John 3 that we should be born and believe, when He says everywhere else that we should be baptized and believe? Clearly, when unless you take the verse out of context of other verses, you should conclude that by "born of water" Jesus meant baptism.

You really can't get more clear than 1 Peter 3:21, which states "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

For a more in depth study of baptism in Scripture, I suggest (as always!) reading through the Scripture Catholic site.

We can also look to see how the early Christians interpreted these verses. Although many fundamentalists feel that the early Church fell into error, most people feel that this didn't occur until after the Council of Nicea in 325. All of the early Church Fathers interpret John 3:5 as referring to water baptism. You can read a sample of their words here.

In Candy's article on the Trinity, she pointed to Cyprian of Carthage as support for her point. On the point of baptism he wrote "[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).

Catholic Catechism paragraph 1257:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" -1 Peter 3:20-21

Noah and his family saved by water? This is only possible if they were in the ark first - else they would have died. Just as baptism only saves us, if we get on the ark first. That ark is our conduit to salvation. Without the protection of the ark, the water will not save us.

We are saved through faith, and we get baptized to show that faith, and that we are being obedient to Christ. If Noah and his family got into the ark, but it never rained, and there was no flood, then did the ark save them? No, it was just an empty shell. Just as faith without works (obedience to God) is dead.

Your baptism doesn't count, unless it occurs after you've gotten onto the ark - after you've gotten saved. Then, you are saved through faith which is a living faith, and that is what drove you to get baptized. Faith without works is dead, but works without faith is as well.

This is a bit more developed than her previous comments on that verse.

Catholics interpret the ark as prefiguring the Church. I'd like to write more on this, but again, I can't at the moment.

Jesus is God, and God wrote the Bible. We are to do what the Bible instructs us to. The Bible instructs us to get baptized after salvation. This, of course means that infant baptism doesn't count as a biblical baptism - it's just getting a baby wet.

We wrote about infant baptism here and here.

Furthermore, baptism is full immersion, not a sprinkling on the head. Read of all of the baptisms in the Bible, and they involved immersion. Look at the Greek word for baptism, and it literally means "to immerse."

Baptism is full immersion, and only "counts" if it is after salvation - else it's just a person getting wet.

What I really want to know is if baptism is just a symbol and doesn't mean anything, then why does it matter if it is full immersion or not? Odd that the churches which believe baptism is a sacrament accept almost any baptism as valid, while those who believe that baptism doesn't mean anything are the ones who often require re-baptism.

You see, there are thousands upon thousands of people walking around, claiming to be Christians, but their life doesn't reflect their Christianity at all. They have a dead faith.

We are called to walk in the spirit, as per such Scriptures as Galatians 5, Romans 8, etc.

When you walk in the spirit, you automatically show your faith by your works.

If the works are produced automatically, then what about free will? What role does grace play in all of this? Candy rarely writes about grace.

A previous post on Candy's "automatic fruit producing" theology.

That explains a lot . . .

From today's post:

It was hard to determine if she was/is a Christian, or a member of a cult. From her journaling, I believe she probably is saved. However, for part of the book she dabbles a bit in a cult, but by the end of the book she is again church shopping, and ends up in (I think) a Foursquare Church - which tends to be a good Christian church.

Candy certainly talks about "cults" a lot, and seems to discover that many seemingly Christian churches are actually "cults" after she has attended them for a while. If she divides the world into "people that agree with my theology" and "people who are in cults" then that explains a lot.

The Catholic Church is a cult = doesn't agree with my theology.

The problem with internet prophecies

is that sometimes they just don't come true! I was looking at this link
and noticed that it was dated in February 2005. Anna Matrix was predicting that the next pope would call himself "Peter." Of course in April of 2005 the new pope called himself Benedict! I'm surprised she hasn't taken this down. (of course she might now so I kept a screen shot.)

I think I remember reading on Anna's blog that the NEXT pope will be Pope Peter. of course she also blogged about the pope would die last week and he only sprained his wrist so there you go!







Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!

Amillenialism

A while back, Candy added a blog called Anna Matrix to her sidebar. She took it down pretty quickly, probably because Anna's language can be a bit spicy and that might not have been appreciated by Candy's general audience.

(Note: Anna does not really appreciate traffic or comments from non-regular readers. If you leave a comment, keep a record, as Elena says. It will probably not remain up for long.)

I've read Anna off and on since then. She's very unique. I've been reading her more lately to keep up with her timeline for the rapture, which is coming up in about 40 days now, according to her.

Anyway, today she had this little bit of information tucked into her post:

Catholics and several other groups are 'amillinialist'. They don't believe that there will be a Tribulation, that the world will face horrors untold, that there will be a judgment, etc. Instead they believe that things will gradually get better and better, that the church will succeed in bringing peace and harmony to the world, and we'll all live together in harmony.

While Catholics are amillenial, Anna does not have the correct definition. Amillenialism does not believe that Jesus will reign on earth for a literal 1000 years. Instead, He is reigning in Heaven for a period of time which is symbolized by 1000 years. At the end of that time, He will physically return to Earth, and there will be a judgement.

From Catholic Answers:

The amillennial view interprets Revelation 20 symbolically and sees the millennium not as an earthly golden age in which the world will be totally Christianized, but as the present period of Christ’s rule in heaven and on the earth through his Church. This was the view of the Protestant Reformers and is still the most common view among traditional Protestants, though not among most of the newer Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups.

Amillennialists also believe in the coexistence of good and evil on earth until the end. The tension that exists on earth between the righteous and the wicked will be resolved only by Christ’s return at the end of time. The golden age of the millennium is instead the heavenly reign of Christ with the saints, in which the Church on earth participates to some degree, though not in the glorious way it will at the Second Coming.

Amillennialists point out that the thrones of the saints who reign with Christ during the millennium appear to be set in heaven (Rev. 20:4; cf. 4:4, 11:16) and that the text nowhere states that Christ is on earth during this reign with the saints.

They explain that, although the world will never be fully Christianized until the Second Coming, the millennium does have effects on earth in that Satan is bound in such a way that he cannot deceive the nations by hindering the preaching of the gospel (Rev. 20:3). They point out that Jesus spoke of the necessity of "binding the strong man" (Satan) in order to plunder his house by rescuing people from his grip (Matt. 12:29). When the disciples returned from a tour of preaching the gospel, rejoicing at how demons were subject to them, Jesus declared, "I saw Satan fall like lightning" (Luke 10:18). Thus for the gospel to move forward at all in the world, it is necessary for Satan to be bound in one sense, even if he may still be active in attacking individuals (1 Pet. 5:8).

This section of the Catechism deals with "From thence He shall come again to judge the living and the dead":

IN BRIEF

680 Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church, but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ's kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil.

681 On Judgment Day at the end of the world, Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.

682 When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.

We do not believe that things will get "better and better" until we have created Heaven on Earth.

675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

You can read previous posts on this subject here and here.

Are Catholics too nice?

I've been involved with the discussions over on Jennie's blog. There have been a couple of times over there that I have read something that felt like a cold slap on the face, but I have over looked it so that I could read the rest of the extensive posting. However, I want to address it here.

Why do anti-Catholic bloggers and their fans feel comfortable, even justified when talking to Catholics in using derogatory terms? Jennie herself keeps referring to Catholicism as "the false gospel." Some of her newer commenters are even bolder in their belligerence and bad manners.

After Vatican II, Catholics kind of got away from using terms like "heretics" in favor of "separated brethren." I wonder why that was never reciprocated?

Challenging William Webster

Jennie at Pilgrim's Daughter has been using William Webster as a resource lately. I am reposting this for her.

Challenging William Webster

In the article by Mary Ann Collins which Candy recently posted, the primary source for information was a book called The Church of Rome at the Bar of History by William Webster. Although Mary Ann Collins says in the article that "primary sources about Catholic doctrines and history come from the Catholic Church" this book is not written by a Catholic, but by a former Catholic.

She mentions several times in her article that she recommends recourses which are "respectful and gentle" in their approach. I appreciate that, in this article at least, some of the wilder anti-Catholic claims do not appear. William Webster is certainly a better alternative to Dave Hunt and Jack Chick.

William Webster is a former Catholic who converted to Evangelical Christianity. Since that time, he has written quite a lot about Catholicism, and he has come to the attention of Catholic apologists.

Stephen Ray, who is himself a convert TO Catholicism, has gotten into a sort of convert vs. convert battle of words with Webster. In his book, Upon This Rock, Ray challenges Webster's book and charges Webster with selective editing.

I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster's response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, "No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that primacy and succession were 'exclusively' related to the bishops of Rome." [2] What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome's primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy.

Webster then wrote an article, refuting Ray's book. Ray now has a 17 part debate with Webster on the issue of papal primacy on his website. At this point, Dave Armstrong (another convert to Catholicism) weighs in with two different articles refuting William Webster.

One article which Webster wrote was regarding the development of the Bible canon, which the Catholic Monarchist responds to here:

As the article continues, Webster displays a most serious ignorance when it comes to the use of the terms "canonical" and "non-canonical." He makes use of quote after quote of church figures in the act of explaining that the deuterocanonical books are "noncanonical," supposedly to prove that they were not considered part of the Bible, but the reader can distinguish for himself what the terms actually mean, because Webster helpfully gives him the definition in this quote from one Cardinal Cajetan:

Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose.

The Cardinal has explained it: Non-canonical doesn't mean "not in the Bible." It means "not confirming matters of faith." By this rule, of course Tobit and Judith and such are not canonical. But look at what he says a breath before the definition: "and any other like books in the canon of the Bible." So he has just called them canonical BEFORE calling them non-canonical--which means that he does NOT mean they are not to be included, but rather that they do not confirm the faith.

John Betts writes about the same article on his website, but from a different angle.

Another article, on Sola Scriptura and the Early Church is tackled by the American Catholic Truth Society.

While Mary Ann Collins does quote from it, William Webster wrote another book with David King titled Holy Scripture: Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. Phil Porvaznik writes about the misrepresentations in it here.

There are lots of resources available about William Webster, but this is plenty to get you started.

World's Oldest Bible

The world's oldest Bible is now available online, and it contains the deuterocanonical books.

I wonder if this is the one Candy claims was found in a monastery trashcan? It came from the monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai.

Pope One World Government

I'll post more on Caritas in Veritate as I get the time. Here is a good start.

Newspapers, blogs, talk-shows on radio and television are full of discussion over Pope Benedict XVI's supposed call for a "new world order" or a "one-world government." These ideas are, however, neither based in reality nor a clear reading of the Pope's latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the release of which yesterday spawned the heated discussion.

The Pope actually speaks directly against a one-world government, and, as would be expected from those who have read his previous writings, calls for massive reform of the United Nations. Confusion seems to have come from paragraph 67 of the encyclical, which has some choice pull-quotes which have spiced the pages of the world's news, from the New York Times to those of conspiracy theorist bloggers seeing the Pope as the Anti-Christ.

If you are interested in some apologetics debate...

albeit in the hopeless "I'm not listening" category, you might want to pop over to

Jennie's blot at Pilgrims's Daughter.

Some of you might remember Jennie from her comments here a while back. Enjoy.







Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!

More Nun Fun

It's about time for Sister Charlotte again, isn't it?