Posted on 04/18/2006 9:07:46 AM PDT by NYer
This is at least sufficient to show that the New Testament doesn't always use the word "baptism" to mean, literally and exclusively, "immersion in water."
Since the catecombs show believers --- and even Christ ----being baptized by having water poured over their heads, you can certainly see that from the earliest times, people were baptized by pouring as well as by immersion.
There is "one baptism" today (Ephesians 4:5). That one baptism is the baptism that saves, and that is water baptism.
Just because there was a departure from the Truth early on in Christianity doesn't make pouring a valid mode of baptism.
The historic Christian way of determining what is valid, includes a consideration of what the Church has believed from the earliest times, over long periods of time, in a widespread way, and in accord wth the testimony of the Fathers (the earliest teachers, who were themselves taught by the Apostles.)
This approach is required by the NT itself, which states that the Church has the power to "bind and loose" (Matt. 16:19 and Matt. 18:18) and has the authority to speak in Christ's name (Luke 10:16); that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13) and that "the Church is the ground and pillar of the truth"(1 Tim 3:15).
Thus, on the basis of the New Testament, we are required us to look to the Church for the basis of our belief and practice. The Church has the authority to determine the definition and the proper conditions for Baptism.
You wrote: "Just because there was a departure from the Truth early on in Christianity doesn't make pouring a valid mode of baptism."
My response is that (1) it's true that there are ancient errors as well as modern errors (antiquity doesn'r make a false thing true!), but (2) the practice of the Church, from the earliest times, approved by Councils and codified in the Church's own law, is certainly not in error. We know this because we know that the "gates of hell" will not prevail against the Church (Matt. 15:18.)
The NT does not show anyone being saved, once the New Covenant was instituted, without baptism for the remission of sins.
The church does not have the power to bind and loose anything that has not already been bound and loosed by God. The Greek grammar clearly teaches this, and the Catholic viewpoint on this is not valid.
Forgive me, I'm afraid I don't understand you. Are you saying the Good Thief wasn't saved? Or are you saying that the New Covenant wasn't instituted before the death of Jesus?
"The church does not have the power to bind and loose anything that has not already been bound and loosed by God. The Greek grammar clearly teaches this, and the Catholic viewpoint on this is not valid."
I have never heard this before, and I suspect it's a doctrine that originated with the 16th century Protestant Reformers (or later.) If this is the case, I seriously doubt that 16th century NW Europeans discovered something essential about the Church, based on Greek grammar, that didn't occur to any Greek-speakers for the first 16 centuries of the Church's existence.
Could you explain in more detail what you believe about the Church's ability or inability to bind and loose --- who exercises this authority --- and what are its limitations? And tell me when this interpretation originated?
BTW, I'm not asking this to vex you. I'm interested in why you believe what you do about the Church's authority as vested by Christ in Peter and the Apostles.
3000 people in a day?
Never happened. The Holy Spirit doesn't go on 1300 year long lunch breaks.
The "departure from the truth" is much more likely to be recent than early.
Last I checked, there were those seeking to depart from the Truth in the New Testament writings. It started very early on.
Why does that seem unlikely to you? It would have taken a few hours for sure, but by no means is it impossible.
The New Covenant was not established before the death of Christ and his resurrection. Until Christ died and rose again, there was not death to be buried into or out of which to be raised.
Both "bound" and "loosed" in Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 are in the Greek perfect tense. That tense describes and action that has been completed in the past and doesn't need to be repeated. The binding and loosing had already occurred in Heaven, and the Apostles were to abide by the will of God. Not the other way around.
Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
# Mark 14:24
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.
Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
1 Corinthians 11:25
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
Hebrews 9:20
He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."
Rather than comment of each of these proof-texts, let me just refer you to this excellent article on how the Euchatrist is the establishment of the New Covenant:
http://www.adoremus.org/0501Sacrifice-banquet.html
As for "bound" and "loosed," you are of course right when you say that the Apostles obey God; God doesn't obey the Apostles. Yet consider this: Jesus also chose, as ruler, to invest the earthly leaders of his Church with real authority. That's the whole point of the "keys": suzereignty. If you'll check out Isaiah 22:21-23, you'll see that the keys signify a viceroy who rules with the authorization of his Master.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.