Posted on 09/02/2009 10:13:08 AM PDT by NYer
"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church." -St. Ignatius of Antioch, early 2nd century.
No problem, thanks for adjusting.
Still, if you're argument is legit, the early Christians must have strayed pretty early.
The early church strayed early and often. Recall that nearly all of Paul's epistles were to address issues with the churches that he established.
The problems with Jewish converts to have Greek converts circumcised is one such example. John spoke of the Gnostic heresy that was infiltrating the church also.
Calling someone by some moniker is not new, nor will it ever go away. I take no offense by it as I am sure Jesus probably did/does not either, His point is that the focus should be on God and not to honor men.
Indeed, and this is symptomatic of the “Reformed” mentality- honors to people “detract” from honor to God. I say not necessarily.
Even St. Paul must have strayed, according to your interpretation. He referred to Timothy and others as his “children,” thereby tempting them to think of him as their spiritual father.
Did Paul err in writing his epistles this way?
Please give me the scripture reference where an infant was baptised. There is none.
All examples of baptism in the Bible are adults after receiving Christ as their Savior.
Baptism does not save.
1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you
In John 1:32, when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.
We also see in John 3:3,5 that Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).
So Christ never baptized with water as prophesied by John the Baptist. If you read verse 4 of John 3 you will see that Christ was talking of natural birth.
John 4:13 Jesus said, "Everyone who drinks from this water will get thirsty again. 14 But whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never get thirsty again--ever! In fact, the water I will give him will become a well of water springing up within him for eternal life."
I hear about eating the wafer and drinking the grape from the cup but never about drinking the water only sprinkling or dipping in the water, why is that? Does any Church practice that covenant?
Jesus changed water into wine at Cana. Everyone knows that. ;-)
Infant Baptism
Baptismal Complexes- The Sacrament of Baptism, Part 2
The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas BAPTISM
Beginning Catholic: The Sacrament of Baptism: Gateway to New Life [Ecumenical]
Converted Muslim Tells Story Behind Papal Baptism
What You [Catholics] Need to Know: Baptism [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 20: The Sacrament of Baptism
Baptism and the Usus Antiquior (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Justified by Baptism (fallout from the Beckwith conversion grows)
The Million-Dollar Infant Baptism
Mystical Baptism and Limbo
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
A Critique of a Critique (On Baptism by Immersion)
Catholics, Reformed Christian Churches sign document recognizing common baptism
“Corresponding to that” refers to Christ’s death and resurrection — THAT saves, not water.
Hoss
**I hear about eating the wafer and drinking the grape from the cup but never about drinking the water only sprinkling or dipping in the water, why is that? Does any Church practice that covenant?**
First correction — the consecrated bread is called a host.
Have you ever attended a Catholic Mass?
WATER is poured into the wine (historically it was used to cut the strongness of the wine) by the priest. Words said by the priest refer to uniting the blood and the wine with the spiritual/divine and physical/humanity of Christ.
I’m just quoting Scripture. I don’t deny that the Resurrection empowers the Baptism to be efficacious.
But to simply state, as the above poster does, that Baptism does not save is directly contradicted by Scripture.
Actually, you’re misquoting scripture. Go back and read the whole passage before the verse you cherry pick; you can’t take the one verse and make it say what you want because you want it to say what you want.
Water baptism, in and of itself, cannot save. It’s not a contradiction. But you are misunderstanding it.
Hoss
No one said Baptism “in and of itself” saves.
But Baptism does save. That’s what Scripture says and that’s what Jesus commanded of us.
Nice try.
Baptism does not save. And scripture does not say that. You’ve cherry-picked one verse and taken it out of context. Try reading it all. Try taking it ALL in context.
Hoss
If you can live with your interpretation, that’s fine. Just wanted to point it out to you.
You cant just wave your hands and say “context” to make hard parts disappear.
No hard part about it.
Take care.
WATER is poured into the wine (historically it was used to cut the strongness of the wine) by the priest. Words said by the priest refer to uniting the blood and the wine with the spiritual/divine and physical/humanity of Christ.
So this is what Christ was referring to in John 4:13? If so why is the grape needed or why didn't He mention it to the woman at the well?
You use the word (historically) is it still done today?
Thank you for putting up with my questions.
No it defitely doesn't appear that way. Christ is the owner of His sacraments, so nothing prevents him from remitting sins and give a new birth directly and not through sacraments of the Church. Secondly, Christ can -- and does -- act through people He empowered, in this case, to baptize.
18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 22 Who is on the right hand of God, swallowing down death, that we might be made heirs of life everlasting: being gone into heaven, the angels and powers and virtues being made subject to him.(1 Peter 3)
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.