The Baptism Debate, Part B

As a retired military member, I like streight forward information. I also know the necessity of verifying information. This is an important topic that requires addressing as it is one of the most debated and contriversial doctrinal issue. The Bible is (as I have noted in other places) the technical manual for life. I digress.
Baptism does not save, in and of itself. A person who is baptized (full immersion or sprinkling, name of Jesus or Father, Son, Holy Ghost) and is not repentant is just a wet sinner.
The best way I can explain as to why baptism is this. It is a landmark. It is one of the first things a person can do and point to as obediance, not to God but the accuser. Not that works save, but works driven by faith are of effect (James 2). Not that God requires a landmark, but as people we do. The Old Testament is replete with landmarks. We have landmarks today.
Baptism is one of the founding principles of our salvation (Hebrews 6:1,2). Not THE founding principle, but one of 6 foundational principles.
The early Church baptised as part of the "initiation" into the Church.
As far as immersion vs sprinkling, do a word study of the word both concordance and definition (metalurgy is a good place to look)
As far as names, I ask a question. Is there a name that fulfills all 3 titles?
The scripture reference. Is it rather Acts 11:16?

Pastor Begg,

You purposfully left out the Luterans when explaining differnt views of Baptism. Could you explain your take on the Lutheran view?

Mr Begg: Catholics are not as paralyzed as you may think. In fact quite a few of your followers seems to have quite a few questions on the Lords Supper B broadcast.

The dispenser of Grace is Christ not the Church. I am curious why you are so interested in the Catechism. Do you have doubts about your own theology?

You may want to reference: http://www.catholic.com/library/Infan...

Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Only Mr. Begg could turn a sermon on Baptism into an inquiry of the validity of the sacrament of confession in the Catholic Church. Rather than question the concept in whole he questions elements such as a perfect confession. His approach of classical fundamentalist questioning is not the approach one would take if the focus was on saving souls.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgi...

God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)

Christ told the apostles to follow his example: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

This power was understood as coming from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).

Some say that any power given to the apostles died with them. Not so. Some powers must have, such as the ability to write Scripture. But the powers necessary to maintain the Church as a living, spiritual society had to be passed down from generation to generation. If they ceased, the Church would cease, except as a quaint abstraction. Christ ordered the apostles to, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations." It would take much time. And he promised them assistance: "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matt. 28:19–20).

If the disciples believed that Christ instituted the power to sacramentally forgive sins in his stead, we would expect the apostles’ successors—the bishops—and Christians of later years to act as though such power was legitimately and habitually exercised. If, on the other hand, the sacramental forgiveness of sins was what Fundamentalists term it, an "invention," and if it was something foisted upon the young Church by ecclesiastical or political leaders, we’d expect to find records of protest. In fact, in early Christian writings we find no sign of protests concerning sacramental forgiveness of sins. Quite the contrary. We find confessing to a priest was accepted as part of the original deposit of faith handed down from the apostles.

Note that the power Christ gave the apostles was twofold: to forgive sins or to hold them bound, which means to retain them unforgiven. Several things follow from this. First, the apostles could not know what sins to forgive and what not to forgive unless they were first told the sins by the sinner. This implies confession. Second, their authority was not merely to proclaim that God had already forgiven sins or that he would forgive sins if there were proper repentance.

Such interpretations don’t account for the distinction between forgiving and retaining—nor do they account for the importance given to the utterance in John 20:21–23. If God has already forgiven all of a man’s sins, or will forgive them all (past and future) upon a single act of repentance, then it makes little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power to "retain" sins, since forgiveness would be all-or-nothing and nothing could be "retained."

Furthermore, if at conversion we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors," which he explained is required because "if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt. 6:12–15).

If forgiveness really can be partial—not a once-for-all thing—how is one to tell which sins have been forgiven, which not, in the absence of a priestly decision? You can’t very well rely on your own gut feelings. No, the biblical passages make sense only if the apostles and their successors were given a real authority.

Still, some people are not convinced. One is Paul Juris, a former priest, now a Fundamentalist, who has written a pamphlet on this subject. The pamphlet is widely distributed by organizations opposed to Catholicism. The cover describes the work as "a study of John 20:23, a much misunderstood and misused portion of Scripture pertaining to the forgiveness of sins." Juris mentions "two main schools of thought," the Catholic and the Fundamentalist positions.

He correctly notes that "among Christians, it is generally agreed that regular confession of one’s sins is obviously necessary to remain in good relationship with God. So the issue is not whether we should or should not confess our sins. Rather, the real issue is, How does God say that our sins are forgiven or retained?"

Is the Catholic who confesses his sins to a priest any better off than the non-Catholic who confesses directly to God? Yes. First, he seeks forgiveness the way Christ intended. Second, by confessing to a priest, the Catholic learns a lesson in humility, which is avoided when one confesses only through private prayer. Third, the Catholic receives sacramental graces the non-Catholic doesn’t get; through the sacrament of penance sins are forgiven and graces are obtained. Fourth, the Catholic is assured that his sins are forgiven; he does not have to rely on a subjective "feeling." Lastly, the Catholic can also obtain sound advice on avoiding sin in the future.

During his lifetime Christ sent out his followers to do his work. Just before he left this world, he gave the apostles special authority, commissioning them to make God’s forgiveness present to all people, and the whole Christian world accepted this, until just a few centuries ago. If there is an "invention" here, it is not the sacrament of penance, but the notion that the sacramental forgiveness of sins is not to be found in the Bible or in early Christian history.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9
We don’t have to rely on a feeling that we are forgiven when we directly ask God for forgiveness. We have His Word that we are forgiven and He does not lie (Titus 1:2).
“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Timothy 2:5.

"‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)

No Catholic believes that a priest, simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes between the soul and God; on the contrary, penance is the removal of the one obstacle that keeps the soul away from God.

It is noteworthy that the fundamental objection so often urged against the Sacrament of Penance was first thought of by the Scribes when Christ said to the sick man of the palsy: "Thy sins are forgiven thee." "And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins but God only?" But Jesus seeing their thoughts, said to them: "Which is easier to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house" (Mark 2:5-11; Matthew 9:2-7). Christ wrought a miracle to show that He had power to forgive sins and that this power could be exerted not only in heaven but also on earth. This power, moreover, He transmitted to Peter and the other Apostles. To Peter He says: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). Later He says to all the Apostles: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 18:18).

In Luke 18:9-14 Jesus taught by a parable the doctrine that a person who humbles himself before the Lord and repents of His sin is declared righteous. He is not told to do acts of penance, for forgiveness is free and not earned. Our sins can only be covered by the blood of Christ and not by any works we try to do. We cannot earn forgiveness. It is given to us by God’s grace through faith (Ephesians 3:8-9). Hebrews 10:19 says that we can boldly (not arrogantly) enter the presence of God when our sins are covered by Christ’s sacrifice through faith. Prior to the sacrifice of Christ, only the priest could enter the inner sanctuary of the temple where God’s presence dwelt. But now, because of Christ’s sacrifice, all whose sins are covered have no need of a priest to represent them.
Christ gave his apostles the keys of the kingdom. They were to spread the gospel which opens the door to heaven and to the Lord’s presence. They could authoritatively declare who was forgiven and who was not based on what Christ had taught them, that all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. The traditions and practices of the Catholic Church which have developed over the centuries go past what scripture teaches and are not supported by scripture.

Mary,

Can I ask where your knowledge of "Catholic beliefs" is from? Catholics do not believe that a man can by his own good works, independently of the Merits and Passion of Jesus Christ and of His grace, obtain salvation, or make any satisfaction for the guilt of his sins, or acquire any merit. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/d...

Even if a Catholic were to agree with you that our tradition is wrong what Protestant sect has it right? There are so many with their own traditions that have nothing to do with Catholic tradition. How can all these sects have different beliefs from the same scripture?

If I should ask you "Did Joe buy a bottle of Pesi?" what does it really man from just the text? Am I asking:
1. Did JOE and not someone else buy the bottle of Pepsi?
2. Did Joe BUY a bottle of Pepsi or not buy it?
3. Did Joe buy a BOTTLE or can of Pepsi?
4. Did Joe buy a bottle of bottle of PEPSI or Coke, or something else?

I do not think you can clearly answer this question without knowing the context and
having been a witness. Likewise I do not believe you are getting the correct context unless you are using
a historical context which is how Catholics view tradition. I would be very suspect
if there was no tradition at all to your service / denomination and I would guess I would not
have to look to far to find another Protestant sect with very different views using the same
verses you quote.
biblical.

Mary,

What is your view on confession in the Episcopal Church? More useless traditions? : http://www.askthepriest.org/askthepri...
"The saying I heard about confession in The Episcopal Church is "All may. Some should. None must." And with private confession to a priest not being compulsory, most Episcopalians never bother unless they attend an Anglo-Catholic Parish.

I think this is worth a second look as the centuries long practice of confessing one's sins to God in the presence of a priest who can then pronounce absolution is a powerful sacrament. I have found in my own life that it is an important way to make a break with past sins. Saying the confession out loud and having a priest give counsel and pronounce absolution is a powerful act. I not only affirm that The Episcopal Church offers the sacrament of Reconciliation, I recommend the practice highly.

One further word on the sacrament. A monk I know has spoken of the confessional as God's Septic Tank. We dump the waste of our lives in confession, freeing ourselves from the baggage too long carried around. But having cleansed out hearts in confession, we must then let the sins go. To go back over those past failings would be as useful as reaching back into a septic tank to stir up the contents. Confess your sins and God will separate them from you as far as the east is from the west. Confess them in the presence of another, expressing true repentance and amendment of life and you should find it easier to walk away from that past."

Non Catholic views on confession:
Lutherans differ from other Protestants, as they practice "confession and absolution". They, like Roman Catholics, see James 5:16 and John 20:22-23 as biblical evidence for confession. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that "Confession is a necessary requirement for complete forgiveness. In Judaism, confession is an important part of attaining forgiveness for both sins against God and another man. Confessions to God are done communally in the plural. Jews confess that "We have sinned." In matters involving offenses against a fellow man, private confession to the victim is a requirement to obtaining forgiveness from the victim, which is generally a requirement to obtaining forgiveness from God. If the victim refuses to forgive, the offender confesses publicly, before larger and larger audience. Confession (viduy) is also performed on one's deathbed, if at all possible.

Roman C.:
When Christ taught His disciples to pray, He taught them to pray to God, our Father in heaven. His model prayer included asking God for forgiveness. When James 5:16 tells us to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another, it is talking about openness and support among brethren. As I wrote in my last post, God wants us to approach Him and says we may due it boldly because our sins are covered by Christ’s blood. The book of Hebrews tells us that Christ has fulfilled the priesthood and as I wrote before, 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that Christ is the only mediator between God and man. God wants a relationship with each of His children. He tells us to call Him Abba Father which is a term of endearment. We are not told in scripture to pray to anyone other than God and are not told that we should be confessing to a priest rather than God.

The church which the New Testament refers to is the body of believers who have repented of their sinful hearts and ways and have placed their trust in Christ’s sacrifice to pay for their sins. Through God’s grace, their sins are forgiven and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to them at the time of their conversion, At that time the Holy Spirit comes to indwell them, in order to bear His fruit in them, to teach them, to guide them and to enable them to glorify God. The true church is not a denomination but members may be found in different denominations.

A denomination or church is only as good as it is true to the Word of God which is our sole authority. Traditions should not be authoritative. Only God’s Word is. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for allowing their traditions to trump the written word of God (Mark 7:6-13).

In choosing a church in which to worship, one should judge it on how it is aligned with scripture. We should be like the Bereans who were commended for searching the scripture to assure what was being taught to them aligned with scripture (Acts 17:11). Scripture is not hard to understand but spiritual truths require the help of the Spirit to understand (Matt. 16:17) and it is promised to all true believers (1 John 2:27) that the Holy Spirit will teach us. We also must always look at context and related passages to gain the true meaning. There are many false teachers (as scripture tells us there will be) who twist scripture and take meanings out of context but true sheep know their shepherd’s voice. False teachers are not true believers but are found inside and outside of churches.

You seem to imply that the traditions of the Catholic church are as they have been since the time of the disciples, but that is not true history. There has been much disagreement among popes and councils. If you are open to searching for the truth about Catholic traditions and church history, you might consider reading Is Rome the True Church by Norman Geisler.

Mary,

The core beliefs of the Catholic Church are from apostolic lineage. One of the most misunderstood things about the Pope is this "infallibility" thing. Some Evangelicals think infallibility means that Catholics claim that every word that comes out of the Pope's mouth is supposed to be infallible.

The Pope is human and therefore sins. He's the first to admit it. He goes to regular confession where he confesses his sin, repents and is granted forgiveness. Catholics do not deny the Pope's humanity. What the Church is saying with the doctrine of infallibly is that Christ is protecting his flock by giving the Pope the ability to say the right things when making official statements about faith and morals. The Church claims that these proclamations are "infallible," not that Church leaders are "indefectible." Most certainly everybody in the Catholic Church has defects (including its leaders), just like Evangelicals and all humans.

The doctrine of infallibility has nothing to do with the brainpower, intuition, moral fibre, or even the faith of the Pope. The Doctrine of infallibility has everything to do with God protecting his Church. It's amazing that even during medieval times when there were some questionable and even bad popes, God kept them silent on issues of faith and morals during their office.

A Pope only exercises infallibility on rare occasions - a handful of times in history. Here are the conditions:

I checked out reviews on Is Rome the True Church by Norman Geisler. Norman Geisler’s co-author of Is Rome the True Church? (Crossway Books, 2008), Joshua Betancourt, has converted to Catholicism!
http://www.catholic-convert.com/2010/...

This review was telling: Geisler and Betancourt do not merely seek to unravel the Catholic claim for apostolic succession; they also seek to show how the episcopal form of church government is unbiblical. (This is most curious when considering that Betancourt received his ordination as a clergyman from an Anglican bishop!) Likewise, Geisler argues for the value of creeds, but does not see them as binding - a suggestion that will raise the eyebrow of a good many readers within other streams of the Reformation.

I think we can go back and forth debating verses, doctrines and books but in the end neither of us will change. I know atheists would look at our differences and say if the Bible is God's word how can there be any differences between Protestants, Lutherans, Episcopals, and Catholics.

This was cut off from the prior post if any are following this ...........

A Pope only exercises infallibility on rare occasions - a handful of times in history. Here are the conditions:

The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity.
The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
It must be on a matter of faith or morals.
He must be intending to teach.

Roman C:
I understand that the Catholic Church does not claim that the pope is infallible except when he is speaking ex cathedra. My point was in response to statements of yours which seem to claim that the practices and doctrines of the Catholic Church today were universally accepted and practiced since the time of the disciples until “a few centuries ago.” This is not historically true. What the book Is Rome the True Church documents through quoting the writings of various early church leaders, is the evolution of doctrine and practices and the disagreements between different leaders.

I believe anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura might appreciate certain creeds and even recite them if they feel they accurately state Biblical truths, but that is not to say they see creeds as having the authority of scripture.

I agree that neither of us seems to be changing the other’s mind so I believe this will be my last post. I do pray that you might consider what I have said about the Bible’s clear statement that there is no mediator between God and men but Christ Jesus. I think one of the most beautiful miraculous acts at the time of the crucifixion was when the veil of the temple which blocked entrance to the Most Holy Place was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death. This signified that all could now enter God’s presence through Christ’s shed blood. Jesus invites all who are weary and heavy laden to come to Him (Matt. 11:28). In 1 Peter 5:7 we are told to cast all our cares on Him for He cares for us.
There is no scripture which tells us to confess to a priest or pray to saints. God wants us to draw near to Him.

Psalm 1 tells us that blessed is the man who meditates on His Word day and night. Psalm 119 tells us that the Word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. I pray that you will search the scriptures and may God reveal His truth to you.

Mary,

I find it interesting throughout this discourse that you are so well versed in what Catholics believe. I agree with much that you have said and disagree with much you have said. Catholics believe there is no mediator between God and men but Christ Jesus but I know you will disagree. If you ever want to do some research in our mass where we confess to God.
See: Order of a Catholic Mass: http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchD...
Priest: May almighty God cleanse us of our sins…………

Breaking of the Bread:
All: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
Communion:
Priest: This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.

In respect to Tradition:
Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
It is one thing to know scripture it is another to realize Christ is not limited to everything the Bible.....
John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Pax,
RC