Posted on 03/28/2008 3:55:36 PM PDT by annalex
There is no apostle who would contradict the interpretation of John 3 as necessity of baptism either. In fact, there is plenty of corroboration of that belief right in the Acts, and 1 Peter.
The reason Sungenis mentioned Polycarp is to explain why the evidence of patristic thinking matters a good deal: they left books which, while not canonical, reflect the teaching they received from the apostolic generation and passed on.
You realize, of course, that St. John the Evangelist outlived all other apostles, and that St. Polycarp was one generation younger than him, and Irenaeus another generation younger.
Yes. You are describing, more or less, the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire and baptism of blood. The same can be said about the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist. They are all necessary when they are available, but if a person is prevented by some obstacle form receiving them, but wishes to receive them, we trust in the infinite mercy of Christ that the disposition of his heart will alone suffice. The sacraments of the Church are called ordinary means of salvation, that is, they are necessary in ordinary circumstances.
People who listen to the Protestant propaganda beamed at them from every microphone and pulpit will believe that, and a tooth fairy, too. Why is it necessary to interpret "water" as anything but "water" in the first place?
Sorry, I don't do popery.
Hmmm... this sounds suspiciously like modern revelation. In spite of sola scriptura, I had an FR poster tell me that evanglicals also rely on divine help for interpreting scriptures. The author of this article states that the Catholic Church claims to receive divine help as well in interpreting scriptures. Of course, the church receives such divine guidance by individuals within the church receiving divine guidance.
So both members of the Catholic Church and evangelicals claim to receive revelation when interpreting the scriptures. It sounds like a good thing to me.
This is an important step for the Evangelicals to recognize that they, too interpret the scripture using outside authority that they claim to be divine.
Once that step is taken, we could begin to compare the interpretations for historicity and apostolicity, or, conversely, poit out attempts at modern revelation, which, of course, should disqualify any given doctrine.
The "outside authority" they claim is the same as that which the CC claims, the Holy Ghost. Not much to argue about there. :-)
Claiming is easy. Proving is hard.
The Catholic Church, by the way, has rules about private revelations. In brief, a private revelation does not have to be believed, no matter what status is enjoys. It may be believed if it is approved by the Church, and it gets approved if it is conformant with the entire body of Catholic doctrine and leads the believer to Christ rather than away from Him. Such are, for example, visions experienced by saints, some apparitions of Our Lady, etc.
That seems pretty reasonable.
Then we are largely in agreement, with the exception being more a matter of degree, if at all.
Therein one might also cede some credence to the radio pastor as well. All of Protestantism recognizes the importance of baptism by water, but would consider the symbolism less important than the change within.
***----------***
In regard to the larger point, while there is value in the Catholic process of determining interpretation, the Protestants are not that far behind. I think that you are lumping Protestants together way too much.
Each denomination has it's own differences in interpretation, just as they may have differences in doctrine (one begets the other, no doubt). But each has it's own apologetics, whereupon a general consensus emerges. While the process is admittedly less structured than the Catholic method, it is infinitely more versatile. This may in fact allow heresy in, but it is much quicker at turning heresy out as well.
As an example, there is a large movement against replacementism in Protestant churches today. As little as sixty years ago, the lion's share accepted replacementism as sound doctrine, as a physical Israel seemed an impossibility, so this entire line of thought, that the Church was the true Israel came into being.
But the Prophecy intruded upon the well thought out plans of men, and the nation of Israel rose up from the ashes of WWII. In less than two generations the Protestants had the facility to remove erroneous doctrine and correct themselves (though I admit that argument is not over yet).
I would consider Catholic thought to be much more stratified, and more or less incapable of changing long held belief, even though there is much evidence to the contrary. The infallibility of the RCC, and of the Pope spring immediately to mind as an example thereof.
But in saying so, let me also state that I am not assured that one is necessarily better than the other, but only different. The Protestants owe much to that Catholic stratification, and the Catholics, I dare say, are sometimes prodded forward by their headstrong younger brothers. One can serve to correct the other, just as our Jewish brothers have standing to correct us both in matters regarding the Old Testament.
This is why there are no private revelations, such as approved apparitions (like Fatima, where a revelation was given to an individual or a group of people), that are ever going to be compulsory for any Catholic to believe. When approved, apparitions are given to us as an aid to our faith, something approved to "help" us, but never compulsory for our faith as a Catholic. This is actually where offshoots like the SDA church go wrong; they claim new prophets came to give the church (the Body of Christ) a "new revelation" binding on the whole Body, that is, compulsory for every Christian to believe; a claim that is contrary to historical Christian belief regarding prophets (no more public prophecy after the apostolic era).
They would be uncriptural if there was a scripture sayng "do not baptize children" or "do not baptize by sprinkling".
Adult baptism indeed is preceded by a catechumenate, that is period of instruction. In infant baptism the parents undergo instruction as appropriate.
What you are talking about now are speculative theologies on topics not covered dogmatically; on these, Catohlics enjoy quite a wide berth themselves. The salvific nature of baptism is matter of dogma, and so is the patristic character of all scriptural interpretation.
Thank you, a much needed clarification.
but you missed my point- In a wide swath of Protestantism, Replacementism was accepted fact, not a speculative theology. It was the ready ability of the Protestants to change direction that I was pointing to.
That something is permitted simply because it is not forbidden is not a standard you would apply in other
cases, is it?
You replaced one speculation with another. Happens at times in Catholicism as well. For example, the Pope recently reminded us all that the Limbo Infantorum doctrine is speculative rather than dogmatic.
It is not as simple as that, but what you said is that these baptisms are unbiblical. This is a word that is thrown around whenever a direct prooftext is missing, and often even when a direct prooftext is to the contrary, basically because, supposedly, the Protestants read the Bible and the Catholics don’t. For the word to have any meaning it has to mean “controverted by the Bible”, hence my remark.
Catholics view baptism as a sacrament, that is something where God plays the decisive part and men play a cooperative part. An adult believer becomes a Christian through baptism not because he now knows Christ but because Christ knows him. So, he doesn’t have to be an adult at all. Thi sis not inconsistent witht he scripture where more than once entire families are said to have been baptized, which natuirally included children. Further, since baptism replaced circumcision, and circucision is done on infants, it is reasonable to extrapolate that baptism should be done on infants also. Finally, the early Church baptized infants, so who are we to presume to know better than them?
Sprinkling, one would speculate, would be the practice in arid Palestine, and immersion is hard to implement in a house when it serves as a church. In one instance — when St. Peter baptizes the first Gentile, I believe — the phrasing is “who would deny this man water to be baptized?” That is a curious turn of the word if the water were a nearby river, but comes naturally if water is to be brought in a bucket.
The Church teaches that when the equipment is available, full immersion is preferable, but either method is valid.
Off the subject, a curious fact about baptismal pools. Often they are of eight sides. Why? It is a reference to the “eighth day of the week”, that is Sunday also known as the first day of the next week. Why call it the eighth day? Because it stands outside of time, — it is timeless. Why is it timeless? Because Christ gave us eternal life on Sunday.
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.