Posted on 03/28/2008 3:55:36 PM PDT by annalex
But did you notice the difference???
I had an FR poster tell me that evanglicals also rely on divine help for interpreting scriptures.
Compared to:
The Catholic Church claims authority to teach in these area of faith and morals, relying on divine guidance outside of Scripture in order to give correct answers to its people
There is no revelation outside of Scripture...But there are plenty of things in Scripture that have NOT been revealed yet...To anyone...And of course, there are parts of Scripture that are understood by some while others are blinded to the truth in those Scriptures...
And like you say, when Isreal became a Nation in 1948, it blew the socks off a lot of people...God is telling the world, heh, I'm not done with Israel yet...
Romans 11 took on a literal meaning then...It became understandable and believable...
That's one of the failings of the Catholic church and the Almost Catholic Protestant churches....They have their interpretations down pat and BAM!, some prophecy gets fulfilled...
Of course they can't accept what's happening...They didn't get the initial prophecy so they claimed Jewishness for themselves...They're not going to give it up now, regardless of what revelations become unveiled in the Scripture...
God is not done with the Jews and there are tons of scripture in the Old Testament and the New Testament that will be revealed to the Jews when God is done with the Gentiles...
Some people need to re-evaluate what the Scriptures say in light of the Israeli Nation revelation...Of course, many already have...
You guys constantly interpret 'baptize', or 'baptism' as water...What's the difference???
That's what I thought most traditional christians believed. However, they've been telling me differently. Both evangelicals and Catholics having been stating they rely on divine inspiration to properly understand the scriptures. I think that is a good thing.
Please see my post # 32 for a discussion of the distinction between private and public revelation. I think it may be helpful for you.
BEDE; What shall we say here about infants, who by reason of their age cannot yet believe; for as to older persons there is no question. In the Church then of our Savior children believe by others, as also they drew from others the sins which are remitted to them in baptism. Catena Aurea Mark 16.
Granted, Venerable Bede (673-735) is not an early father.
Here is, for good measure, St. Chrysostom and Augustine on John 3:5, -- to neither one does it occur that water does not mean baptismal water:
AUG. As if He said, You understand me to speak of a carnal birth; but a man must be born of water and of the Spirit, if he is to enter into the kingdom of God. If to obtain the temporal inheritance of his human father, a man must be born of the womb of his mother; to obtain the eternal inheritance of his heavenly Father, he must be born of the womb of the Church. And since man consists of two parts, body and soul, the mode even of this latter birth is twofold; water the visible part cleansing the body; the Spirit by His invisible cooperation, changing the invisible soul.CHRYS. If any one asks how a man is born of water, I ask in return, how Adam was born from the ground. For as in the beginning though the element of earth was the subject-matter, the man was the work of the fashioner; so now too, though the element of water is the subject-matter, the whole work is done by the Spirit of grace. He then gave Paradise for a place to dwell in; now He has opened heaven to us. But what need is there of water, to those who receive the Holy Ghost? It carries out the divine symbols of burial, mortification, resurrection, and life. For by the immersion of our heads in the water, the old man disappears and is buried as it were in a sepulcher, whence he ascends a new man. Thus should you learn, that the virtue of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, fills all things. For which reason also Christ lay three days in the grave before His resurrection. That then which the womb is to the offspring, water is to the believer; he is fashioned and formed in the water. But that which is fashioned in the womb needs time; whereas the water all is done in an instant. For the nature of the body is such as to require time for its completion; but spiritual creations are perfect from the beginning. From the time that our Lord ascended out of the Jordan, water produces no longer reptiles, i.e. living souls; but souls rational and endued with the Spirit.
AUG. Because He does not say, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he shall not have salvation, or eternal life; but, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God; from this, some infer that children are to be baptized in order to be with Christ in the kingdom of God, where they would not be, were they not baptized; but that they will obtain salvation and eternal life even if they die without baptism, not being bound with any chain of sin. But why is a man born again, except to be changed from his old into a new state? Or why does the image of God not enter into the kingdom of God, if it be not by reason of sin?
You state:
The Church teaches that the entire deposit of faith was given at Pentecost, and our understanding thereof is what grows over time.
It is rather clear that the canon is closed for the CC and evangelicals, however, there are statements from both groups indicating that they receive "divine guidance" for interpreting the canon. After all, where else can you receive "divine guidance" except from the divine, and where else can you receive understanding of the things of God, but from God.
Quite correct, it is God the Holy Spirit that gives us Catholics guidance in these areas. The guidance given isn't "new revelation" however. It's guidance that protects us from erroneous interpretations/understandings (via the councils and Popes' vis a vis ex cathedra), and thus, He increases our understanding of the original deposit given at Pentecost.
You may be wondering, "Why not just call this 'guidance', 'revelation'?" This is to be certain to never confuse anyone by misleading them into believing we Catholics believe there are "prophets for today". There are no prophets for today who's words would be considered the Word of God. Knowing this however, if one wishes, one could describe the events of the Councils and the Papal decrees as "revelations", but only insomuch as to not confuse them with the Word of God. The ex cathedral and conciliar decrees are not the Word of God; they are clarifications of the original deposit of faith meant to teach us more about the original deposit, not to "reveal new doctrine".
Thanks for the clarification! It was very helpful in better understanding the CC beliefs in this area.
You’re welcome, thanks for the thoughtful questions!
Whether the analogy between circumcision and baptism was drawn in the scripture or not, it is still a reasonable analogy as both are, besides everything else that separates them, rituals of entry into a religious community.
Whether a centurion had a pool nearby or not is not an issue, it is simply that to “deny water” seems to have a comnnotation that the water is brought in. I agree, it is not definitive.
Water is the form of baptism. We often mention the form when we speak of an essence. Another example is the cross, which stands for the Passion of the Christ. No interpretation is required to understand that a scriptural passage mentioning the cross makes a reference to the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ.
The vocabulary for natural birth is offered by Nicodemus in John 3, and that is "womb". No interpretation is needed to understand that Nicodemus is talking of the natural birth of a baby when he says "womb".
But to say that "water" refers to natural birth is a wide leap of interpretation, even more so since "womb"" is already established in the same conversation as a term for it.
I'll remember that theory when someone tells me that we should not pray to Mary.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Manfred, that's called "begging the question". What is precisely at issue is whether water baptism is mentioned here, and whether it is required for salvation.
Asserting the contrary by putting "The fact that" in front of it isn't an argument.
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.